Alvis v. Espinosa

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for and/or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the respondent in this case.

Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that when an officer makes an unlawful entry, and does so “intentionally or recklessly,” the officer loses authority under the Fourth Amendment to use reasonable force to protect himself or the public during that search; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity for the officers’ use of force based solely on the conclusion that the force may have violated the Fourth Amendment, without performing the second step of the qualified immunity analysis by inquiring whether clearly established law prohibited the force under the circumstances.

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (9th Cir.)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of California State Sheriffs' Association
• Amicus brief of San Francisco Police Officers Association
• Petitioner's reply