Samuel Pauly Case Study

On a dark and rainy night in October of 2011, Samuel Pauly was shot to death through the window of his rural New Mexico home by one of three state police officers investigating an earlier road rage incident. On behalf of Samuel Pauly's estate, his father filed a civil rights action against the three officers, the State of New Mexico Department of Public Safety, and two state officials, claiming defendants violated his son's Fourth Amendment right against the use of excessive force. During this entire case between White vs Pauly the main underlining issue was that, is it clearly established by law that a late-arriving officer at an ongoing situation must second-guess the actions of officers that had arrived before? What the Supreme Court is

The Fourth Amendment states that, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Within this battle, the parties that were involved were, brothers Daniel and Samuel Pauly, Officers white, Truesdale and Mariscal. During this time, the Supreme Court was deciding whether Officer White violated this right of Daniel Pauly. As well as, whether that law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Nevertheless, they are deciding if Officer White should be granted Qualified Immunity. This Qualified Immunity protects government from liability for civil damages and, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow Fitzgerald). Within this case, officer white pleaded qualified immunity because even though he was late to the confrontation, he thought that him and he two other partners were in danger due to Samuel Pauly having an armed weapon pointed towards them. The Supreme Court also held the same precedent as was put down in an earlier case. That standard was, “if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given” (Legal Information Institute,