In the case of Rochelle Brosseau v. Kenneth J. Haugen, decided in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Officer Rochelle Brosseau who had been sued by Kenneth Haugen for violating his Fourth Amendment rights during an arrest attempt. The incident involved Brosseau shooting Haugen as he attempted to flee in a vehicle which she believed posed a threat to officers and bystanders on foot nearby. Lower courts were divided over whether this constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures, but ultimately it was brought before the Supreme Court. The court held that even if such conduct did violate the Fourth Amendment (which they didn't decide), Officer Brosseau would still be entitled to qualified immunity because her actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known about at that time. This decision clarified how lower courts should apply standards for qualified immunity when considering police use-of-force cases where there is potential danger to others present during an arrest situation.

In the dissenting opinion for Rochelle Brosseau v. Kenneth J. Haugen, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority's decision to grant qualified immunity to Officer Brosseau was incorrect because it failed to consider whether her actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. He contended that a jury should have been allowed to decide if shooting Haugen in order to prevent his escape constituted an unreasonable seizure of his person, as there was no immediate threat posed by him at the time of shooting and he was unarmed. Furthermore, Justice Stevens criticized the court's reliance on precedents which did not directly apply since they involved high-speed chases or other imminent dangers unlike this case where such circumstances were absent.