After a crash filled 20-minute high-speed car chase—
caught on video by police helicopter—Javier Ambler II
died while resisting being handcuffed due in part to an
imperceptible heart condition. Video shows Nissen used a
modicum of force for less than 90 seconds to assist the first
arriving deputies handcuff Ambler in the prone position.
Ambler stated he could not breathe in the scuffle, but force
stopped when the handcuffs clicked. Nissen was denied
qualified immunity.

The questions presented are:

1. Can a fact question on the "deadliness" of force impose
a heightened deadly force standard that "constrains" the
Fourth Amendment's objective test—essentially requiring
officers to forfeit immunity unless they can prove it would
have also been appropriate to shoot the suspect ?

2. After a suspect leads police on a 20-minute highspeed car chase, can a reasonable officer use 90 seconds
of soft-hand controls in the prone position to handcuff that
suspect—reasonably making a split-second presumption
that the suspect is dangerous and his claimed medical
emergency is a ploy?

3. Did the law clearly establish that soft-hand controls
and a taser—used to effectuate handcuffing in the prone
position—became unlawful the instant the suspect stated,
"I can't breathe", when no prior precedent in this Court
or the Fifth Circuit ever contemplated that such a suspect
had just led police on an outrageous high-speed chase?

Whether a fact question on the 'deadliness' of force can impose a heightened deadly force standard that constrains the Fourth Amendment's objective test for qualified immunity during a high-speed pursuit