In the case of Lombardo v. St. Louis, 2020, Nicholas Gilbert died in police custody after being restrained by officers for fifteen minutes in a prone position (face down). His family filed a lawsuit against the city of St. Louis and several police officers alleging excessive force was used which violated Gilbert's Fourth Amendment rights. The lower courts ruled in favor of the defendants stating that they were entitled to qualified immunity because it wasn't clearly established that their actions constituted excessive force under existing precedent. However, on May 17th, 2021, the U.S Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded it back to lower court for further consideration emphasizing two points: first is whether or not restraining an individual face-down constitutes deadly force; secondly if there are any clear guidelines regarding how long such restraint can be applied before it becomes potentially lethal. The Supreme Court did not rule on these issues but rather asked them to be reconsidered by lower courts with reference to specific facts about what happened during Mr.Gilbert’s detention.

In the dissenting opinion for Lombardo v. St. Louis, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision failed to consider key facts and evidence in the case, particularly regarding whether or not Nicholas Gilbert posed a threat to police officers at the time of his death. She emphasized that video footage showed Gilbert was already handcuffed and shackled when he was placed in a prone position by multiple officers who then applied significant pressure on his back for 15 minutes until he stopped breathing. This contradicts with their claim of self-defense as there were no signs of him resisting arrest or posing any danger during this period. Justice Sotomayor also criticized how lower courts have been applying qualified immunity doctrine too broadly which shields law enforcement from accountability even when they use excessive force leading to someone’s death while being detained under their custody. She further pointed out that it is clearly established law since decades ago that using such deadly force against non-resisting suspects violates Fourth Amendment rights hence should be held unconstitutional without needing another identical precedent case ruling so. Lastly, she expressed concern over how this ruling could set dangerous precedents allowing police misconducts go unchecked thus eroding public trust in our justice system.