Qualified Immunity Denied for Unlawful Arrest and Excessive Force: The Pre-Shooting Conduct Standard in Ibarra v. Lee

Introduction

Ibarra v. Lee, decided May 5, 2025 by the Tenth Circuit, clarifies how courts assess qualified immunity in § 1983 suits when the challenged force follows a contested arrest. Here, the plaintiff—Rosalinda Ibarra, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Jorge Martinez—claims Officer Cheyenne Lee violated the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest without probable cause and then using excessive force to fatally shoot Mr. Martinez. The key questions are:

Did pre-shooting events, credited in the plaintiff’s version, demonstrate a Fourth Amendment violation?
Was that violation “clearly established” so as to defeat Officer Lee’s qualified immunity defense?

The court re-examined record facts under the law-of-the-case doctrine and state criminal definitions, concluding no reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed or that deadly force was permitted.

Summary of the Judgment

On remand from an earlier Tenth Circuit unpublished opinion, the district court found the plaintiff’s version of events would support both an unlawful arrest and excessive force. It denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and Officer Lee appealed again. The Tenth Circuit panel applied de novo review but was bound by its prior factual conclusions. It held:

An arrest based on five Oklahoma state statutes lacked any objectively reasonable basis under the plaintiff’s version of events.
Shooting Mr. Martinez—who, according to that version, posed no threat and carried no weapon—violated the Fourth Amendment.
Given controlling precedent and the plain language of the statutes, those constitutional violations were “clearly established” as of March 2020.

Accordingly, Officer Lee could not invoke qualified immunity, and the denial of summary judgment was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Ibarra v. Lee (10th Cir. 2023) – Prior panel’s holding that plaintiff’s version could establish an unlawful arrest and excessive force; remand for “clearly established” analysis.
Avant v. Doke, 104 F.4th 203 (10th Cir. 2024) – De novo review standard on summary judgment qualified immunity appeals.
Verdecia v. Adams, 327 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2003) – Burden-shifting framework for § 1983 qualified immunity claims.
Morris v. Noe, 672 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2012) & Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp., 53 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 1995) – Law-of-the-case doctrine binding factual findings on remand.
Mglej v. Gardner, 974 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2020) – Reliance on state statute text to show probable-cause absence is “clearly established.”
Cronick v. Pryor, 99 F.4th 1262 (10th Cir. 2024) – Plain-language approach to ordinance-based probable cause analysis.
Huff v. Reeves, 996 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2021), Reavis v. Frost, 967 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 2020), McCoy v. Meyers, 887 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir. 2018) – Excessive-force precedents barring deadly force against unarmed, non-threatening suspects.
Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) & Irvin v. Richardson, 20 F.4th 1199 (8th Cir. 2021) – “Mere argument” or walking away does not support obstruction charges.
Trent v. State, 777 P.2d 401 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) – Obstruction under Oklahoma law requires active defiance after a lawful order, not mere protest.
Sandersfield v. State, 568 P.2d 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977) – Right to resist arrest that lacks probable cause.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two principal phases:

Law-of-the-Case and Factual Findings. The panel was bound by its prior determination of what a reasonable jury could find under the plaintiff’s account: no threats, no aggressive movements, no lawful service of the protective order, and minimal defensive resistance to the attempted arrest.
Clearly Established Standard. Under qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show (a) a constitutional violation and (b) that the right was clearly established. Having already found the violation, the panel next asked whether any reasonable officer could believe he had probable cause or may use deadly force under the Fourth Amendment.

Key elements of the analysis:

Probable Cause for Arrest. Because the arrest claims rested on five Oklahoma statutes, the panel focused on the plain statutory language. Under the plaintiff’s version, no facts satisfied the elements of:
- Threatening a violent act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 21 § 1378(B)
- Obstructing an officer, § 21-540
- Violating a protective order, tit. 22 § 60.9(A)
- Assaulting a police officer, § 21-649
- Resisting a peace officer, § 21-268
The court held it was “objectively unreasonable” to believe any of these crimes were committed.
Excessive Force. Under longstanding Fourth Amendment precedent, shooting an unarmed, non-threatening individual is excessive. Plaintiff’s version: no weapon, no prior or immediate threat, minimal defensive resistance. The panel found that deadly force was not justified as a matter of law.

3. Impact

Ibarra v. Lee reinforces and refines several important principles:

Pre-Shooting Conduct Matters. Courts will examine the sequence of events before any use of force to determine both probable cause and the reasonableness of force.
State-Law Definitions in § 1983 Cases. When an arrest is based on state-law offenses, courts should give primacy to statutory text in evaluating probable cause and “clearly established” status.
Law-of-the-Case Binding. Once a panel has defined the facts as a jury could find them, subsequent appeals must honor those findings when addressing qualified immunity.
Officer Training and Policies. Agencies must train officers on the precise elements of state offenses and reinforce that deadly force against non-threatening suspects violates the Fourth Amendment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: A judicial doctrine shielding government officials from civil liability unless they violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
Probable Cause: A reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances known to the officer, that a person has committed or is committing a crime.
Excessive Force: Use of force by law enforcement that is not objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, considering the severity of the crime, threat posed by the suspect, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to flee.
Law of the Case: A doctrine specifying that legal decisions made at one stage of litigation bind the same parties in later stages on the same issues.

Conclusion

Ibarra v. Lee establishes a clear rule: when contested pre-shooting events—credited in the plaintiff’s version—demonstrate no probable cause for arrest under state law and no reasonable basis for deadly force, qualified immunity cannot shield the officer. This decision underscores the necessity for officers to verify each statutory element before arrest and to avoid resorting to lethal measures against unarmed, non-threatening individuals. It also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to applying precise statutory language and binding factual determinations to hold officials accountable under the Fourth Amendment.