Question not identified.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents important issues relating to the inquiry for determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity. The following questions are presented: (1) Whether conduct that is sufficiently egregious to shock the conscience, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, necessarily is so obviously unlawful as to preclude a qualified immunity defense to liability? (2) This Court has repeatedly held that qualified immunity does not protect officers from liability for obvious constitutional violations. Here, an officer shot a woman during a standoff, where she posed no imminent threat, because he was hot and frustrated. The bullet went through the woman and hit the Petitioner, a five-year-old child, who the officer knew was present and might be hit by the shot. A jury has determined that the officer’s calculated decision to shoot was not objectively reasonable. Did the Maryland Supreme Court violate this Court’s precedents by holding that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because it could find no prior decision involving similar facts?