1. Whether Roane's act had to be the "necessary" or "unavoidable" act, rather than within a range of objective reasonableness, to be considered an act of self-protection rather than an unreasonable seizure of personal property in violation of the Fourth Amendment or violation of clearly established law.

2. Whether the Fourth Circuit improperly vacated summary judgment for Roane on the Fourth Amendment seizure of personal property claim, disregarding the developed evidentiary record as to the objective reasonableness of Roane's perception of the threat and instead looking exclusively at two of plaintiff's allegations it had identified as "material" in ruling on the sufficiency of the Complaint at the motion to dismiss stage, in an evidentiary vacuum, to conjure an issue as to whether Roane's perception was "credible."

3. Whether the Fourth Circuit improperly denied qualified immunity to Roane on the Fourth Amendment seizure of personal property claim, citing no decision with circumstances like those shown by the evidence and relying on its own decision after the incident, reversing dismissal on the pleadings, and that decision's "general principles," as the "clearly established law."

Whether Roane's act had to be the 'necessary' or 'unavoidable' act, rather than within a range of objective reasonableness, to be considered an act of self-protection rather than an unreasonable seizure of personal property in violation of the Fourth Amendment or violation of clearly established law