Whether the Court should reverse or recalibrate the doctrine of qualified immunity

QUESTION PRESENTED Police officers released a dog on an unarmed, injured, unconscious man who had wandered out of a hospital in a disoriented daze wearing nothing but his boxers and a hospital gown, and had then passed out in a storage closet. In the four minutes leading up to the use of canine force, the officers gave no warning of their intention to use a dog bite. And, for fifteen to twenty seconds after the bite began, the dog’s handler actively encouraged the dog to keep biting, ultimately leaving Petitioner’s forearm looking—in the words of one of the officers—“like ground hamburger.” The officers won summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit, finding that the multitude of dog-bite and other use-of-force cases cited by two with nearly identical facts to those here—were insufficient to clearly establish the unlawfulness of this conduct, affirmed. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Court should reverse or recalibrate the doctrine of qualified immunity. 2. Whether the Tenth Circuit correctly decided that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.