Whether the Tenth Circuit improperly applied a collective qualified immunity analysis and evaluated clearly established rights at an impermissibly high level of generality

This case involves an attempt by several law enforcement officers to detain and arrest Respondents’ decedent Jeffery Krueger on July 1, 2019. On that night, in the middle of a busy highway, Mr. Krueger resisted the arresting deputies’ commands. Other officers – including Petitioners Blair, Craig, McFarland and Nevitt – were summoned to the scene to assist after the arrest had already begun. They were unaware of the basis or background for the arrest but reasonably believed Mr. Krueger was resisting arrest and assaulting police officers. Mr. Krueger was ultimately restrained, placed in a prone position in handcuffs and yet continued to struggle. The officers and deputies eventually placed leg chains and a hobble chain on Mr. Krueger and then removed all controlling force. However, soon thereafter, Mr. Krueger began shallow breathing. He was taken to a hospital, but he ultimately passed away. The medical examiner found that the probable cause of death was “cardiac dysrhythmias due to probable acute psychosis in the setting of physical exertion and restraint.” The District Court rejected Petitioners’ qualified immunity defense with regard to Respondents’ Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review, rejected portions of the findings of the District Court, but affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Tenth Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to Petitioners on the issue of excessive force without conducting an ii individualized qualified immunity analysis, but rather engaged, at least in part, in a “collective” qualified immunity analysis which considered the aggregate actions of multiple officers at the scene? 2. Whether, in denying qualified immunity, the Tenth Circuit evaluated whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at an impermissibly high level of generality, contrary to this Court’s repeated warnings, including in Kisela v. Hughes , 584 U.S. 100 (2018); City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan , 575 U.S. 600 (2015); and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd , 563 U.S. 731 (2011).