Whether the Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard for exigency, and the availability of qualified immunity itself, remain questions of law applied to the facts after disputes are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard for exigency, and the availability of qualified immunity itself, remain questions of law applied to the facts after disputes are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party; or whether and to what extent they implicate questions which must be left to the jury. 2. Whether, in light of (1), the Eleventh Circuit Panel erred by denying qualified immunity on grounds that a jury could find the officers could not objectively believe the circumstances they faced constituted exigency as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for lawful seizure. 3. Whether the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard for exigency, and the question of whether an officer violated a clearly established right, have evolved to include consideration of subjective elements contrary to this Court’s established precedent. 4. Whether, in light of (8), the Eleventh Circuit Panel erred by holding that a jury should determine what officers subjectively understood in order to establish the reasonableness of their actions under the Fourth Amendment, and that evidence of an officer’s subjective state of mind as to whether a suspect posed a threat precluded the grant of qualified immunity. 5. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that a general principal of law, that the Fourth Amendment prohibits seizure within the curtilage of the home absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, established with the u requisite degree of particularity that the officers violated clearly established law in the particular circumstances they faced.