In the case of Howard Wyatt v. Bill Cole and John Robbins, II (1991), Wyatt filed a lawsuit against Cole and Robbins for allegedly violating his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by using excessive force during an arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which was granted by the district court as they found that there was no constitutional violation because reasonable officers could have believed their conduct was lawful given clearly established law at that time. Wyatt appealed this decision to the Supreme Court arguing that whether or not a right is "clearly established" should be determined with reference to all relevant precedents including decisions from other circuits and state courts, not just those from local jurisdiction or Supreme Court itself. However, his appeal failed as it did not meet standards set out in previous cases such as Anderson v Creighton (1987) where it had been held that officials can only lose their immunity if they knew or should have known they were infringing upon a 'clearly established' right.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Howard Wyatt v. Bill Cole and John Robbins, II argued that the majority's decision to uphold a search warrant based on an anonymous tip was a dangerous precedent that could potentially infrive upon Fourth Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that allowing law enforcement officials to obtain warrants without corroborating evidence from reliable sources undermines citizens' protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. They contended that this ruling gives too much power to police officers who can now act on unsubstantiated tips, which may lead to abuses of authority or violations of civil liberties. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse by individuals with malicious intent who might use false information as a weapon against others out of spite or personal vendetta.