Viewing the facts from the officers' perspective at the time, did the officers act reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished?

In March 2019, the Petitioner police officers responded to a call from Roy Anthony Scott, a paranoid schizophrenic individual who was hallucinating about armed, would-be intruders outside his apartment. Scott also had methamphetamine in his system. During the encounter that followed, which was captured by the officers’ body-worn cameras, Scott produced two weapons—a metal pipe and a knife—but refused to submit to a patdown and refused other police instructions. The officers attempted to handcuff Scott for their safety. They used bodyweight pressure to restrain Scott for no longer than 95 seconds and immediately moved him to the recovery position once handcuffing was complete. Scott was conscious and speaking throughout that process and did not show signs of respiratory distress. Several minutes later, Scott experienced medical distress and after a medical transport, he was pronounced dead. The Ninth Circuit denied the officers qualified immunity. The questions presented are: 1. Viewing the facts from the officers’ perspective at the time, did the officers act reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished? 2. Did the panel err in denying qualified immunity where no case clearly established that prehandcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the Fourth Amendment?