Reaffirming the Plaintiff’s Burden on the Clearly-Established Law Prong in Qualified Immunity
A Comprehensive Commentary on Bailey v. Beale, No. 23-7083 (10th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

Bailey v. Beale is a pivotal decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that sharpens the contours of the qualified-immunity doctrine in § 1983 litigation. The Estate of Jeffrey Peterson (“the Estate”) sued Officer Marcus Beale, alleging an unlawful warrantless entry into Peterson’s apartment and related constitutional violations. The district court denied qualified immunity on the unlawful-entry claim, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, emphatically holding that the plaintiff bears – and in this case failed to discharge – the burden of identifying clearly established law that would have put the officer on notice that the entry violated the Fourth Amendment.

At its core, the case addresses:

• Whether a police officer may claim qualified immunity when the plaintiff does not cite precedent that “particularizes” the Fourth Amendment right alleged.
• What constitutes adequate evidence of “clearly established” law for unlawful-entry claims premised on hot pursuit or officer-safety exigencies.
• The appellate court’s authority, under the collateral-order doctrine, to decide the clearly-established-law question de novo on interlocutory review.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit (Judges Tymkovich, Matheson, and Eid) reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and instructed that judgment be entered for Officer Beale on the § 1983 unlawful-entry claim. Key holdings:

1. Qualified Immunity Granted. The Estate failed to meet its burden of showing that Officer Beale’s warrantless entry violated a clearly established right.
2. No Need to Reach the Merits Prong. Exercising discretion under Pearson v. Callahan, the panel resolved the case at the second prong without deciding whether a constitutional violation in fact occurred.
3. Inadequate Precedent Cited. The Estate cited only one unpublished case (United States v. Belisle) that was neither binding nor factually on point; therefore, the Estate’s showing was “anemic.”
4. Scope of Appellate Review. Consistent with the collateral-order doctrine, the court limited its review to abstract questions of law and assumed the district court’s factual view in the Estate’s favor.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) – Authorizes courts to skip directly to the clearly-established prong; Bailey relies heavily on this discretion.
• Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) – Requires the right to be “particularized” rather than defined at a high level of generality; Bailey invokes this to reject the Estate’s broad formulation.
• White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017) – Reiterates Anderson’s particularity rule; cited for the same proposition.
• Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) – Supplies the “would it be clear to a reasonable officer?” test; Bailey applies it after Pearson’s sequencing flexibility.
• Cox v. Glanz, 800 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2015) and Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2020) – Frame the court’s limited jurisdiction over factual disputes in an interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal.
• United States v. Belisle, 164 F. App’x 657 (10th Cir. 2005) – The Estate’s lone precedent; the panel finds it unpublished, distinguishable, and therefore inadequate.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning unfolds methodically:

1. Step 1 – Identify the Proper Qualified-Immunity Framework. The court reiterates the two-prong test (violation + clearly established). Under Pearson, it may dispose of the case by addressing only the second prong.
2. Step 2 – Assign the Burden. Citing settled Tenth Circuit authority, the court confirms that once qualified immunity is invoked, the plaintiff must identify binding precedent or a robust consensus of persuasive authority.
3. Step 3 – Assess the Estate’s Showing. The Estate offered one unpublished opinion for a broad proposition (warrantless home entry absent exigency is unconstitutional). This fails because:
   • Unpublished opinions rarely constitute clearly established law.
   • The cited case involves a different exigency (danger to occupants) than the asserted ones (hot pursuit / officer safety).
   • The statement of law is too general to “particularize” the right.
4. Step 4 – Conclude Qualified Immunity Applies. Because no on-point precedent or obvious-clarity argument was provided, a reasonable officer would not have “fair warning” that the entry violated the Constitution.
5. Step 5 – Application of Collateral-Order Doctrine. The appellate court confines itself to the “abstract” legal question and accepts the district court’s factual assumptions (e.g., that Officer Beale’s arm was trapped, that Peterson threatened violence, etc.) without re-weighing evidence.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

Bailey v. Beale is likely to resonate in multiple ways:

• Litigation Strategy. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Tenth Circuit must rigorously research and cite binding or strongly persuasive precedent tailored to the factual scenario. “Bare-bones” briefing will be fatal.
• District Court Practice. Trial judges now have a clear appellate roadmap requiring explicit analysis of both qualified-immunity prongs and foreclosing summary-judgment denials that skip the clearly-established inquiry.
• Officer Decision-Making. Law-enforcement agencies may view Bailey as confirming a wider berth for immediate action when precedential guidance is thin or factually dissimilar.
• Hot-Pursuit and Officer-Safety Exigencies. Bailey does not expand or contract exigent-circumstance doctrine directly but underscores that its boundaries remain murky unless clarified by precedent.
• Appellate Efficiency. The Tenth Circuit signals willingness to decide qualified-immunity appeals on the “pure law” question rather than remand, promoting faster resolution.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Qualified Immunity: A legal shield protecting government officials from personal liability unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right.
• Clearly Established Law: Precedent that is so factually similar or unmistakably clear that any reasonable official would know his conduct was unconstitutional. Usually requires on-point Supreme Court or circuit authority.
• Exigent Circumstances: Situations where immediate police action is necessary (e.g., danger to life, hot pursuit of a suspect, destruction of evidence) thereby excusing the warrant requirement.
• Hot Pursuit: The direct and immediate chase of a fleeing suspect; traditionally allows officers to follow the suspect into a home without a warrant.
• Collateral-Order Doctrine: An exception allowing immediate appeal of interlocutory orders (like denials of qualified immunity) that would be effectively unreviewable if parties had to wait until final judgment.
• Particularization Requirement: The rule that clearly established law must address the specific context and facts confronted by the officer, not merely abstract constitutional principles.

5. Conclusion

Bailey v. Beale reinforces an essential but sometimes overlooked pillar of qualified-immunity jurisprudence: The burden to cite factually precise, binding precedent rests squarely on the plaintiff. By reversing the district court on the clearly-established prong alone, the Tenth Circuit underscores that skipping or glossing over this analytical step will not survive appellate scrutiny. Going forward, Bailey is poised to influence pleading, briefing, and judicial decision-making throughout the circuit, and it may serve as persuasive authority elsewhere for demanding meticulous precedent-based arguments before stripping officers of qualified immunity.