Kisela v. Hughes

In 2010, Tucson police officer Andrew Kisela responded to a report of a woman acting erratically with a knife. Amy Hughes emerged from her house holding a large kitchen knife, ignored commands to drop it, and walked toward her roommate, Sharon Chadwick. When Hughes was within a few feet of Chadwick, Kisela shot her four times. Hughes survived and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied qualified immunity, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding a factual dispute about the threat Hughes posed. On April 2, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision reversing the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the shooting, existing precedent did not clearly establish that an officer could not use deadly force under those specific circumstances.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that Officer Andrew Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity, ruling that his conduct did not violate clearly established law at the time of the shooting.

Whether Officer Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity from the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, specifically whether the law was clearly established in 2010 that his use of deadly force against a knife-wielding woman who ignored commands and approached another person was unconstitutional.

The decision reinforced the qualified immunity doctrine, making it harder to hold police officers civilly liable for excessive force. It intensified national debate over police accountability and spurred calls for legislative reform of qualified immunity, particularly regarding the "clearly established law" standard.