Cases compared
Christopher Zook, et al., Petitioners v. Scott Fuqua vs. Okello T. Chatrie, Petitioner v. United States vs. Amy Hadley, Petitioner v. City of South Bend, Indiana, et al.
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1108No. 25-112No. 25-1158
Side by side
| Fact | Christopher Zook, et al., Petitioners v. Scott Fuqua | Okello T. Chatrie, Petitioner v. United States | Amy Hadley, Petitioner v. City of South Bend, Indiana, et al. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1108 | 25-112 | 25-1158 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Decided | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | Decided Jun 29, 2026 | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. Whether a district court may, or must, consider objective video evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage when that evidence is central to the complaint and blatantly contradicts or utterly discredits the allegations of a plaintiff's complaint in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action, given a circuit split between the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits (which permit consideration of such videos) and the Tenth Circuit (which does not)? 2. Whether a § 1983 plaintiff can satisfy the plausibility standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), by strategically omitting known facts, here, that the decedent fled the police in a reckless manner by vehicle, fired a weapon at officers just prior to being shot, and was running toward an occupied civilian vehicle at the time of the shooting, when including those facts would defeat the claim? 3. Whether Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), standing alone, clearly establishes a Fourth Amendment violation sufficient to defeat qualified immunity at the pleading stage in a factually complex officer-involved shooting in which the decedent had moments earlier fired a weapon at officers, ignored repeated commands, and fled toward an occupied civilian vehicle, contrary to this Court's repeated instructions that clearly established law must be defined with specificity and particularity to the facts of the case? | Did the execution of the geofence warrant violate the Fourth Amendment? | Whether—in spite of all precedent to the contrary—property damaged in a law enforcement search is “taken for public use,” so as to allow a claim under the Fifth Amendment, even though, at all times, the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? |
| Summary | Police officers Christopher Zook and others ask the Supreme Court to review a Tenth Circuit ruling that allowed Scott Fuqua’s federal excessive-force claim to proceed. The petition concerns whether courts at the motion-to-dismiss stage may rely on video evidence that contradicts the complaint, whether a plaintiff may omit known facts that would undermine the claim, and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. | The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie’s Google Location History through a geofence warrant, because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in detailed cell-phone location data. The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings on whether the warrant’s multi-step process met Fourth Amendment requirements. | Amy Hadley asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the City of South Bend must compensate her after police, trying to apprehend a suspect with no connection to her or her home, allegedly caused major damage to her property during a mistaken raid. The case concerns whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause applies when law enforcement intentionally damages an innocent owner’s property while exercising police powers. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.