In the case of White v. Pauly, 2016, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Officer Ray White from New Mexico State Police who was involved in a fatal shooting incident during an attempted arrest at Daniel Pauly's residence. The court held that Officer White did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Daniel and Samuel Pauly by using deadly force without first identifying himself and issuing a warning. The decision overturned lower courts' rulings which denied qualified immunity to Officer White on grounds that he violated clearly established law. The Supreme Court stated that such specificity is especially important in Fourth Amendment cases because it can be difficult for officers to determine how relevant legal doctrines apply to factual situations they encounter.

In the dissenting opinion for White v. Pauly, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that the majority's decision to grant qualified immunity to Officer White sets a dangerous precedent. They contended that it effectively tells officers they can shoot first and think later as long as they are not plainly incompetent or knowingly violating the law. The dissent pointed out that Officer White arrived late at the scene without knowing why he was there and immediately used deadly force without identifying himself or giving any commands to Samuel Pauly before shooting him dead in his own home. According to them, this clearly violates established Fourth Amendment principles which require police officers to identify themselves and give warnings whenever possible before using deadly force.