II. THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE OFFICERS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO RECORD OFFICERS WHO ARE NOT ON NOTICE.
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages as long as their conduct is not violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In specific, qualified immunity protects officials from the unfairness of being sued for performing their public duties when the particular lines between constitutional and unconstitutional conduct is unclear. See Fordyce v. City of Seattle, Szymeck v. Houck, Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle. In addition, qualified immunity is necessary to avoid deterrence of officials from advancing public good in a lawful manner because of fear of exposure to liability. See Pearson …show more content…
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). In Pearson, 555 U.S. at 224, however, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the strict sequential two-step qualified immunity analysis mandated by Saucier was unworkable. Consequently, while preserving the substantive qualified immunity analysis, the Court held that the rigid sequential order was no longer mandatory, but, rather, the various courts should be permitted sound discretion in deciding which of the questions to address first. Id. at 236. Specifically, the Court noted that in cases involving heavily-bound constitutional questions, discussion of the first prong would result in significant expenditure of sparse judicial resources that will, furthermore, have no effect on the case’s outcome. Id. at
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages as long as their conduct is not violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In specific, qualified immunity protects officials from the unfairness of being sued for performing their public duties when the particular lines between constitutional and unconstitutional conduct is unclear. See Fordyce v. City of Seattle, Szymeck v. Houck, Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle. In addition, qualified immunity is necessary to avoid deterrence of officials from advancing public good in a lawful manner because of fear of exposure to liability. See Pearson …show more content…
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). In Pearson, 555 U.S. at 224, however, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the strict sequential two-step qualified immunity analysis mandated by Saucier was unworkable. Consequently, while preserving the substantive qualified immunity analysis, the Court held that the rigid sequential order was no longer mandatory, but, rather, the various courts should be permitted sound discretion in deciding which of the questions to address first. Id. at 236. Specifically, the Court noted that in cases involving heavily-bound constitutional questions, discussion of the first prong would result in significant expenditure of sparse judicial resources that will, furthermore, have no effect on the case’s outcome. Id. at