Whether Roane's act had to be the 'necessary' or 'unavoidable' act, rather than within a range of objective reasonableness, to be considered an act of self-protection rather than an unreasonable seizure of personal property in violation of the Fourth Amendment or violation of clearly established law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Michael Roane, a drug task force officer, was called at home in 2017 to respond to a place he had never been. As he pulled in, he saw a dog tied to a tree off his truck’s passenger side. When he stepped out, the 150-pound dog aggressively chased the backpedaling Roane down the driver’s side. Thinking the dog had broken free when it closed to within a step in seconds and was about to attack him, Roane fired one shot to protect himself and the dog died. Afterwards, Roane learned the dog was on a lead sliding across a zip line up in the trees. Tina Ray filed suit, claiming unreasonable seizure of her personal property in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights and state law conversion. The District Court dismissed the case, but the Fourth Circuit reversed. After discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit vacated summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim. According to the Fourth Circuit, when it decided at the motion to dismiss stage that two allegations — Roane stopped and took a step forward before shooting — were “material,” those two allegations became “critical,” dictating denial of summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit disregarded the evidentiary record, showing the circumstances and Roane’s perceptions when he acted to protect himself. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Roane’s act had to be the “necessary” or “anavoidable” act, rather than within a range of objective reasonableness, to be considered an act of self-protection u rather than an unreasonable seizure of personal property in violation of the Fourth Amendment or violation of clearly established law. 2. Whether the Fourth Circuit improperly vacated summary judgment for Roane on the Fourth Amendment seizure of personal property claim, disregarding the developed evidentiary record as to the objective reasonableness of Roane’s perception of the threat and instead looking exclusively at two of plaintiff’s allegations it had identified as “material” in ruling on the sufficiency of the Complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, in an evidentiary vacuum, to conjure an issue as to whether Roane’s perception was “credible.” 3. Whether the Fourth Circuit improperly denied qualified immunity to Roane on the Fourth Amendment seizure of personal property claim, citing no decision with circumstances like those shown by the evidence and relying on its own decision after the incident, reversing dismissal on the pleadings, and that decision’s “general principles,” as the “clearly established law.”