filarsky
delia
argued
january
decided
april
respondent
delia
firefighter
employed
city
rialto
california
missed
work
becoming
ill
job
suspicious
delia
extended
absence
city
hired
private
investigation
firm
conduct
surveillance
delia
seen
buying
fiberglass
insulation
building
supplies
city
initiated
internal
affairs
investigation
hired
petitioner
filarsky
private
attorney
interview
delia
interview
delia
attorney
two
fire
department
officials
also
attended
delia
acknowledged
buying
supplies
denied
done
work
home
verify
delia
claim
filarsky
asked
delia
allow
fire
department
official
enter
home
view
unused
materials
delia
refused
filarsky
ordered
bring
materials
home
official
see
prompted
delia
attorney
threaten
civil
rights
action
city
filarsky
nonetheless
interview
concluded
officials
followed
delia
home
produced
materials
delia
brought
action
city
fire
department
filarsky
individuals
alleging
order
produce
building
materials
violated
fourth
fourteenth
amendment
rights
district
granted
summary
judgment
individual
defendants
basis
qualified
immunity
appeals
ninth
circuit
affirmed
respect
individual
defendants
except
filarsky
concluding
entitled
seek
qualified
immunity
private
attorney
city
employee
held
private
individual
temporarily
retained
government
carry
work
entitled
seek
qualified
immunity
suit
pp
determining
whether
appeals
made
valid
distinction
city
employees
filarsky
qualified
immunity
purposes
looks
general
principles
tort
immunities
defenses
applicable
common
law
reasons
afforded
protection
suit
see
imbler
pachtman
common
law
existed
congress
enacted
draw
distinction
public
servants
private
individuals
engaged
public
service
according
protection
carrying
government
responsibilities
government
time
smaller
size
reach
fewer
responsibilities
operated
primarily
local
level
government
work
carried
significant
extent
individuals
devote
time
public
duties
instead
pursued
private
callings
well
according
protection
suit
individuals
government
work
common
law
draw
distinctions
based
nature
worker
engagement
government
indeed
examples
individuals
receiving
immunity
actions
taken
engaged
public
service
temporary
occasional
basis
varied
reach
government
common
law
principles
immunity
incorporated
abrogated
absent
clear
legislative
intent
see
pulliam
allen
immunity
therefore
vary
depending
whether
individual
working
government
permanent
employee
basis
pp
nothing
reasons
given
recognizing
immunity
counsels
carrying
forward
common
law
rule
first
government
interest
avoiding
unwarranted
timidity
part
engaged
public
called
important
special
government
concern
richardson
mcknight
equally
implicated
regardless
whether
individual
sued
state
actor
works
government
basis
second
affording
immunity
acting
government
behalf
serves
talented
candidates
deterred
threat
damages
suits
entering
public
service
government
need
specialized
knowledge
expertise
may
look
outside
permanent
workforce
secure
services
private
individuals
individuals
free
choose
work
expose
liability
government
actions
talented
candidates
might
decline
public
engagements
receive
immunity
enjoyed
public
employee
counterparts
third
public
interest
ensuring
performance
government
duties
free
distractions
accompany
lawsuits
implicated
whether
duties
discharged
private
individuals
permanent
government
employees
finally
distinguishing
among
carry
public
business
based
particular
relationship
government
creates
significant
problems
deprive
state
actors
ability
anticipate
conduct
may
give
rise
liability
damages
anderson
creighton
pp
conclusion
contrary
wyatt
cole
richardson
mcknight
wyatt
implicate
reasons
underlying
recognition
qualified
immunity
defendant
case
connection
government
pursued
purely
private
ends
richardson
involved
unusual
circumstances
prison
guards
employed
private
company
worked
privately
run
prison
facility
nothing
sort
involved
typical
case
individual
hired
government
assist
carrying
work
pp
reversed
roberts
delivered
opinion
unanimous
ginsburg
sotomayor
filed
concurring
opinions
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
steve
filarsky
petitioner
nicholas
delia
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
april
chief
justice
roberts
delivered
opinion
section
provides
cause
action
state
actors
violate
individual
rights
federal
law
common
law
carried
work
government
enjoyed
various
protections
liability
order
allow
serve
government
without
undue
fear
personal
exposure
decisions
looked
common
law
protections
affording
either
absolute
qualified
immunity
individuals
sued
question
case
whether
individual
hired
government
work
prohibited
seeking
immunity
solely
works
government
something
permanent
basis
nicholas
delia
firefighter
employed
city
rialto
california
became
ill
responding
toxic
spill
august
doctor
orders
delia
missed
three
weeks
work
city
became
suspicious
delia
extended
absence
hired
private
investigation
firm
conduct
surveillance
private
investigators
observed
delia
purchasing
building
several
rolls
fiberglass
insulation
home
improvement
store
city
surmised
delia
missing
work
construction
home
rather
illness
initiated
formal
internal
affairs
investigation
delia
ordered
appear
administrative
investigation
interview
city
hired
steve
filarsky
conduct
interview
filarsky
experienced
employment
lawyer
previously
represented
city
several
investigations
delia
attorney
attended
interview
along
filarsky
two
fire
department
officials
mike
peel
frank
bekker
interview
filarsky
questioned
delia
building
supplies
delia
acknowledged
purchased
supplies
claimed
yet
done
work
home
break
filarsky
met
peel
bekker
fire
chief
stephen
wells
filarsky
proposed
resolving
investigation
verifying
delia
claim
done
work
home
filarsky
recommended
asking
delia
produce
building
materials
chief
wells
approved
plan
meeting
resumed
filarsky
requested
permission
peel
enter
delia
home
view
materials
advice
counsel
delia
refused
filarsky
asked
delia
willing
bring
materials
onto
lawn
peel
observe
without
entering
home
delia
refused
consent
unable
obtain
delia
cooperation
filarsky
ordered
produce
materials
inspection
delia
counsel
objected
order
asserting
violate
fourth
amendment
objection
proved
unavailing
delia
counsel
threatened
sue
city
went
tell
filarsky
might
quite
possibly
find
way
figure
name
filarsky
want
take
chance
go
right
ahead
app
threat
repeated
verybody
going
get
named
going
sweat
whether
individual
liability
ou
order
named
idle
threat
whoever
issues
order
going
named
lawsuit
seek
damages
including
individual
liability
coming
order
ake
sure
spelling
clear
order
know
sue
despite
threats
filarsky
prepared
order
directing
delia
produce
materials
chief
wells
signed
soon
interview
concluded
peel
bekker
followed
delia
home
delia
attorney
union
representative
went
delia
house
brought
four
rolls
insulation
placed
delia
lawn
peel
bekker
remained
car
process
thanked
delia
showing
insulation
drove
delia
brought
action
city
fire
department
chief
wells
peel
bekker
filarsky
ten
unidentified
individuals
alleging
order
produce
building
materials
violated
rights
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
district
granted
summary
judgment
individual
defendants
concluding
protected
qualified
immunity
held
delia
demonstrated
violation
clearly
established
constitutional
right
delia
threatened
insubordination
termination
comply
order
given
none
defendants
entered
house
delia
rialto
cv
cd
mar
app
pet
cert
appeals
ninth
circuit
affirmed
respect
defendants
except
filarsky
appeals
concluded
order
violated
fourth
amendment
agreed
district
delia
ha
demonstrated
constitutional
right
clearly
established
date
chief
wells
order
defendants
known
actions
unlawful
delia
rialto
filarsky
however
concluded
private
attorney
city
employee
entitled
seek
protection
qualified
immunity
noted
decision
conflicted
decision
appeals
sixth
circuit
see
cullinan
abramson
considered
bound
circuit
precedent
therefore
free
follow
cullinan
decision
citing
gonzalez
spencer
filarsky
filed
petition
certiorari
granted
ii
section
provides
cause
action
person
deprives
individual
federally
guaranteed
rights
color
state
law
anyone
whose
conduct
fairly
attributable
state
sued
state
actor
see
lugar
edmondson
oil
common
law
government
actors
afforded
certain
protections
liability
based
reasoning
public
good
best
secured
allowing
officers
charged
duty
deciding
upon
rights
others
act
upon
free
unbiased
convictions
uninfluenced
apprehensions
wasson
mitchell
iowa
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
prosser
law
torts
common
law
protections
derived
need
avoid
impossible
burden
fall
upon
agencies
government
acting
behalf
government
unduly
hampered
intimidated
discharge
duties
fear
personal
liability
decisions
recognized
similar
immunities
reasoning
common
law
protections
grounded
history
reason
abrogated
covert
inclusion
general
language
imbler
pachtman
quoting
tenney
brandhove
case
dispute
qualified
immunity
available
sort
investigative
activities
issue
see
pearson
callahan
appeals
granted
protection
chief
wells
peel
bekker
denied
filarsky
public
employee
instead
private
individual
retained
city
participate
internal
affairs
investigations
determining
whether
distinction
valid
look
general
principles
tort
immunities
defenses
applicable
common
law
reasons
afforded
protection
suit
imbler
supra
precedent
inquiry
begins
common
law
existed
congress
passed
tower
glover
understanding
protections
common
law
afforded
exercising
government
power
requires
appreciation
nature
government
time
century
government
smaller
size
reach
fewer
responsibilities
operated
primarily
local
level
local
governments
faced
tight
budget
constraints
generally
neither
need
ability
maintain
established
bureaucracy
staffed
professionals
see
campbell
growth
american
government
governance
cleveland
era
present
noting
governor
office
staff
wisconsin
totaled
five
workers
count
lieutenant
governor
janitor
one
commentator
observed
time
clear
conception
professional
office
office
incumbent
devotes
entire
time
discharge
public
functions
occupation
receives
sufficiently
large
compensation
enable
live
without
resorting
means
goodnow
principles
administrative
law
instead
significant
extent
government
administered
members
society
temporarily
occasionally
discharge
public
functions
whether
government
relied
primarily
upon
professionals
occasional
workers
obviously
varied
across
country
across
different
government
functions
even
turn
twentieth
century
public
servant
often
one
devote
entire
time
public
duties
time
holding
public
office
permitted
carry
regular
business
matter
fact
finds
main
means
support
business
private
means
since
receives
office
compensation
insufficient
support
private
citizens
actively
involved
government
work
especially
work
directly
touched
lives
people
unusual
example
see
owner
local
general
store
step
behind
window
shop
postman
hat
see
stole
stamps
maysville
ky
evening
bulletin
reporting
post
office
general
store
mount
hope
broken
resulting
loss
worth
cutlery
stamps
surprise
find
trip
docks
local
ferryman
collecting
harbor
fees
public
wharfmaster
see
johnson
history
kentucky
kentuckians
even
core
government
activity
criminal
prosecution
often
carried
mixture
public
employees
private
individuals
temporarily
serving
public
time
enacted
private
lawyers
regularly
engaged
conduct
criminal
prosecutions
behalf
state
see
commonwealth
gibbs
mass
white
polk
county
iowa
abraham
lincoln
accepted
several
appointments
see
awful
crime
speedy
punishment
springfield
daily
register
may
reporting
lincoln
esq
appointed
prosecutor
rape
case
addition
private
lawyers
often
assisted
public
prosecutors
significant
cases
see
commonwealth
knapp
mass
chambers
state
public
prosecutors
continued
represent
private
clients
office
sometimes
creating
odd
conflicts
interest
see
people
bussey
public
prosecutor
employed
private
counsel
defendant
wife
several
civil
suits
defendant
phillip
waller
haw
public
prosecutor
represented
plaintiff
suit
malicious
prosecution
oliver
pate
ind
public
prosecutor
conducted
state
prosecution
defendant
later
served
counsel
defendant
malicious
prosecution
suit
complaining
witness
mixture
public
responsibility
private
pursuits
extended
even
highest
levels
government
position
became
example
attorney
general
expected
maintain
active
private
law
practice
cite
notable
illustration
hayburn
case
dall
first
attorney
general
edmund
randolph
sought
writ
mandamus
compel
lower
hear
william
hayburn
petition
put
pension
list
allow
attorney
general
seek
writ
official
capacity
randolph
readily
solved
problem
arguing
case
hayburn
private
lawyer
ibid
see
also
letter
edmund
randolph
james
madison
reprinted
papers
james
madison
rutland
mason
brugger
sisson
teute
eds
bloch
early
role
attorney
general
constitutional
scheme
beginning
pragmatism
duke
given
come
surprise
common
law
draw
distinction
public
servants
private
individuals
engaged
public
service
according
protection
carrying
government
responsibilities
government
actors
involved
adjudicative
activities
example
protected
absolute
immunity
suit
see
bradley
fisher
wall
bishop
commentaries
law
immunity
applied
equally
highest
judge
state
nation
lowest
officer
sits
tries
petty
causes
cooley
law
torts
including
served
judges
episodic
basis
justices
peace
example
often
maintained
active
private
law
practices
even
nonlegal
livelihoods
generally
served
judicial
capacity
see
hubbell
harbeck
hun
ingraham
leland
fact
justices
peace
even
paid
salary
government
instead
received
compensation
fees
payable
parties
came
see
murfee
justice
peace
yet
common
law
extended
immunity
justice
peace
judicial
officer
pratt
gardner
mass
see
also
mangold
thorpe
common
law
also
extended
certain
protections
individuals
engaged
law
enforcement
activities
sheriffs
constables
time
enacted
however
line
public
private
policing
frequently
hazy
private
detectives
privately
employed
patrol
personnel
often
publicly
appointed
special
policemen
means
objects
detective
work
particular
made
difficult
distinguish
public
payroll
private
detectives
sklansky
private
police
ucla
rev
footnotes
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
protections
provided
common
law
turn
whether
someone
today
call
police
officer
worked
government
instead
public
private
employers
rather
common
law
special
constable
duly
appointed
according
law
ha
powers
regular
constable
far
may
necessary
proper
discharge
special
duties
intrusted
lawful
discharge
duties
fully
protected
officer
murfee
treatise
law
sheriffs
ministerial
officers
sheriffs
executing
warrant
empowered
common
law
enlist
aid
men
community
see
blackstone
commentaries
laws
england
quarles
serving
part
posse
comitatus
private
individual
authority
sheriff
protected
extent
see
robinson
state
member
posse
comitatus
summoned
sheriff
aid
execution
warrant
felony
sheriff
hands
entitled
protection
discharge
duties
sheriff
state
mooring
considering
well
settled
courts
sheriff
may
break
open
doors
house
execute
search
warrant
act
good
faith
posse
comitatus
protected
north
carolina
gosnell
cc
wdnc
judicial
ministerial
officers
execution
duties
office
strong
protection
law
legally
summoned
assistants
time
service
officers
law
reed
rice
app
private
individuals
summoned
constable
execute
search
warrant
protected
suit
based
invalidity
warrant
indeed
examples
individuals
receiving
immunity
actions
taken
engaged
public
service
temporary
occasional
basis
varied
reach
government
see
gregory
brooks
public
wharfmaster
liable
ordering
removal
vessel
unless
order
issued
maliciously
henderson
smith
notaries
public
given
immunity
discretionary
acts
taken
good
faith
chamberlain
clayton
iowa
trustees
public
institution
disabled
liable
absent
showing
malice
mccormick
burt
school
board
members
liable
suspending
student
good
faith
donohue
richards
downer
lent
cal
members
board
pilot
commissioners
given
immunity
official
acts
rail
potts
baker
private
individuals
appointed
sheriff
serve
judges
election
liable
refusing
voter
absent
showing
malice
jenkins
waldron
johns
ny
sup
read
harmony
general
principles
tort
immunities
defenses
imbler
proceed
assumption
principles
immunity
incorporated
judicial
system
abrogated
absent
clear
legislative
intent
pulliam
allen
assumption
immunity
vary
depending
whether
individual
working
government
employee
basis
nothing
reasons
given
recognizing
immunity
counsels
carrying
forward
common
law
rule
explained
immunity
protect
government
ability
perform
traditional
functions
wyatt
cole
helping
avoid
unwarranted
timidity
performance
public
duties
ensuring
talented
candidates
deterred
public
service
preventing
harmful
distractions
carrying
work
government
often
accompany
damages
suits
richardson
mcknight
called
government
interest
avoiding
unwarranted
timidity
part
engaged
public
business
important
special
government
concern
ensuring
serve
government
decisiveness
judgment
required
public
good
scheuer
rhodes
vital
importance
regardless
whether
individual
sued
state
actor
works
basis
affording
immunity
public
employees
also
others
acting
behalf
government
similarly
serves
talented
candidates
deterred
threat
damages
suits
entering
public
service
richardson
supra
quoting
wyatt
supra
government
need
attract
talented
individuals
limited
public
employees
indeed
often
particular
need
specialized
knowledge
expertise
government
must
look
outside
permanent
work
force
secure
services
private
individuals
case
good
example
filarsky
years
specialized
experience
attorney
labor
employment
personnel
matters
particular
expertise
conducting
internal
affairs
investigations
app
pet
cert
app
city
rialto
certainly
permanent
employee
anything
approaching
qualifications
extent
private
individuals
depend
government
livelihood
freedom
select
work
work
expose
liability
government
actions
makes
likely
talented
candidates
decline
public
engagements
receive
immunity
enjoyed
public
employee
counterparts
sometimes
case
private
individuals
work
close
coordination
public
employees
face
threatened
legal
action
conduct
see
app
delia
lawyer
everybody
going
get
named
threatened
suit
government
employees
often
protected
suit
form
immunity
working
alongside
left
holding
bag
facing
full
liability
actions
taken
conjunction
government
employees
enjoy
immunity
activity
circumstances
private
individual
choice
might
think
twice
accepting
government
assignment
public
interest
ensuring
performance
government
duties
free
distractions
accompany
even
routine
lawsuits
also
implicated
individuals
permanent
government
employees
discharge
duties
see
richardson
supra
individuals
performance
ongoing
government
responsibilities
suffer
distraction
lawsuits
distractions
also
often
affect
public
employees
work
embroiling
employees
litigation
case
good
example
suit
filarsky
moves
forward
highly
likely
chief
wells
bekker
peel
required
testify
given
roles
dispute
allowing
suit
private
individuals
assisting
government
substantially
undermine
important
reason
immunity
accorded
public
employees
first
place
distinguishing
among
carry
public
business
based
nature
particular
relationship
government
also
creates
significant
problems
unclear
example
filarsky
categorized
regularly
spent
half
time
working
city
worked
exclusively
one
city
project
entire
year
see
tr
oral
arg
questions
deprive
state
actors
ability
reasonably
anticipate
conduct
may
give
rise
liability
damages
anderson
creighton
alteration
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
frustrating
purposes
immunity
meant
serve
uncertain
immunity
little
better
immunity
iii
decisions
wyatt
cole
richardson
mcknight
contrary
wyatt
held
individuals
used
state
replevin
law
compel
local
sheriff
seize
disputed
property
former
business
partner
entitled
seek
qualified
immunity
cf
lugar
holding
individual
uses
state
replevin
garnishment
attachment
statute
later
declared
unconstitutional
acts
color
state
law
purposes
explained
reasons
underlying
recognition
qualified
immunity
support
extension
individuals
connection
government
pursued
purely
private
ends
individuals
hold
office
requiring
exercise
discretion
principally
concerned
enhancing
public
good
concluded
extending
immunity
bearing
whether
public
officials
able
act
forcefully
decisively
jobs
whether
qualified
applicants
enter
public
service
wyatt
plainly
implicated
circumstances
case
unlike
defendants
wyatt
using
mechanisms
government
achieve
ends
individuals
working
government
pursuit
government
objectives
principally
concerned
enhancing
public
good
ibid
whether
individuals
assurance
able
seek
protection
sued
directly
affects
government
ability
achieve
objectives
public
service
put
simply
wyatt
involved
government
agents
government
interests
government
need
immunity
richardson
considered
whether
guards
employed
privately
run
prison
facility
seek
protection
qualified
immunity
although
previously
determined
prison
guards
entitled
qualified
immunity
see
procunier
navarette
determined
prison
guards
employed
private
company
working
privately
run
prison
facility
enjoy
protection
explained
various
incentives
characteristic
private
market
case
ensured
guards
perform
public
duties
unwarranted
timidity
deterred
entering
line
work
richardson
narrow
decision
answered
immunity
question
narrowly
context
arose
made
clear
holding
meant
foreclose
claims
immunity
private
individuals
ibid
instead
emphasized
particular
circumstances
case
private
firm
systematically
organized
assume
major
lengthy
administrative
task
managing
institution
limited
direct
supervision
government
undertak
ing
task
profit
potentially
competition
firms
combined
sufficiently
mitigate
concerns
underlying
recognition
governmental
immunity
ibid
nothing
sort
involved
typical
case
individual
hired
government
assist
carrying
work
straightforward
application
rule
set
sufficient
resolve
case
though
public
employee
filarsky
retained
city
assist
conducting
official
investigation
potential
wrongdoing
dispute
government
employees
performing
work
entitled
seek
protection
qualified
immunity
appeals
rejected
filarsky
claim
protection
accorded
wells
bekker
peel
solely
permanent
employee
city
common
law
however
draw
distinctions
see
justification
new
york
city
department
investigation
staffed
public
employees
investigate
city
personnel
resources
pay
city
rialto
neither
must
rely
occasional
services
private
individuals
filarsky
reason
rialto
internal
affairs
investigator
denied
qualified
immunity
enjoyed
ones
work
new
york
light
foregoing
judgment
appeals
denying
qualified
immunity
filarsky
reversed
ordered
ginsburg
concurring
steve
filarsky
petitioner
nicholas
delia
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
april
justice
ginsburg
concurring
addresses
sole
question
case
private
attorney
retained
municipality
investigate
personnel
matter
eligible
qualified
immunity
suit
alleging
constitutional
violation
committed
course
investigation
agree
answer
yes
judgment
appeals
holding
private
attorney
filarsky
categorically
ineligible
qualified
immunity
must
reversed
qualified
immunity
may
overcome
however
defendant
knew
known
conduct
violated
right
clearly
established
time
episode
suit
see
harlow
fitzgerald
ninth
circuit
consider
application
standard
filarsky
matter
see
may
pursued
remand
filarsky
retained
city
rialto
investigate
whether
city
firefighter
delia
taking
time
work
false
pretense
disabling
physical
condition
pursuit
investigation
filarsky
asked
delia
consent
search
home
determine
delia
done
several
rolls
insulation
recently
purchased
home
improvement
store
delia
counsel
advice
refused
consent
search
filarsky
hatch
ed
plan
overcome
delia
resistance
delia
rialto
different
way
filarsky
informed
delia
app
see
unable
obtain
delia
consent
warrantless
search
house
filarsky
tried
different
following
filarsky
advice
fire
chief
wells
ordered
delia
bring
insulation
house
place
rolls
lawn
inspection
app
filarsky
recommended
course
ninth
circuit
observed
mindful
individual
expectation
privacy
items
exposed
public
thereby
eliminating
need
search
warrant
delia
complied
chief
wells
order
producing
rolls
unused
app
investigation
legitimacy
delia
absence
work
apparently
ended
explaining
individual
defendants
filarsky
entitled
summary
judgment
qualified
immunity
pleas
ninth
circuit
stated
threat
delia
employment
attended
fire
chief
wells
order
district
similarly
stated
delia
threatened
insubordination
termination
comply
order
app
pet
cert
statements
odds
facts
recounted
appeals
onset
interview
ninth
circuit
stressed
filarsky
warned
delia
obligated
fully
cooperate
time
deemed
cooperating
held
insubordinate
subject
disciplinary
action
including
termination
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
continuing
vein
appeals
concluded
delia
actions
involuntary
coerced
direct
threat
sanctions
including
loss
firefighter
position
see
delia
actions
involuntary
occurred
result
direct
threat
sanctions
proceedings
upon
return
case
appeals
questions
bear
attention
first
clearly
established
ninth
circuit
thought
warrantless
search
home
presumptively
unreasonable
investigating
officer
may
official
circumvent
warrant
requirement
ordering
person
investigation
cart
personal
property
house
inspection
clearly
established
employee
may
fired
exercising
constitutional
right
see
equally
plain
discipline
discharge
may
threatened
induce
surrender
right
short
responded
appropriately
question
tendered
review
circuit
law
remain
muddled
absent
appeals
focused
attention
question
whether
filarsky
conduct
violated
clearly
established
law
sotomayor
concurring
steve
filarsky
petitioner
nicholas
delia
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
april
justice
sotomayor
concurring
appeals
denied
qualified
immunity
filarsky
solely
retained
outside
counsel
formal
employee
city
rialto
agree
join
today
opinion
holding
distinction
sound
basis
deny
immunity
add
follow
every
private
individual
works
government
capacity
necessarily
may
claim
qualified
immunity
sued
individuals
must
satisfy
usual
test
conferring
immunity
explains
test
look
principles
tort
immunities
defenses
applicable
common
law
reasons
afforded
protection
suit
ante
quoting
imbler
pachtman
thus
richardson
mcknight
denied
qualified
immunity
prison
guards
privately
employed
despite
quintessentially
public
function
found
special
reasons
significantly
favoring
extension
governmental
immunity
context
left
open
question
whether
immunity
appropriate
private
individual
briefly
associated
government
body
serving
adjunct
government
essential
governmental
activity
acting
close
oficial
supervision
filarsky
supported
amicus
curiae
contends
fits
coda
worked
close
coordination
supervision
city
employees
whether
filarsky
supervised
employees
supervising
unclear
doubt
filarsky
worked
alongside
employees
investigating
delia
circumstances
agree
filarsky
allowed
claim
qualified
immunity
suit
opinion
persuasively
explains
rooted
tradition
immunity
applicable
individuals
perform
government
work
capacities
formal
employees
see
ante
conferring
qualified
immunity
individuals
like
filarsky
helps
protec
government
ability
perform
traditional
functions
thereby
helps
protect
public
large
wyatt
cole
private
individual
works
closely
immune
government
employees
real
risk
individual
intimidated
performing
duties
fully
alone
may
bear
price
liability
collective
conduct
see
ante
see
also
ante
noting
distraction
caused
immune
public
employees
litigation
brought
nonimmune
associates
mean
private
individual
may
assert
qualified
immunity
working
close
coordination
government
employees
example
richardson
suggestion
immunity
also
appropriate
individuals
serving
adjunct
government
essential
governmental
activity
seem
encompass
special
prosecutors
comparable
individuals
hired
independence
may
yet
circumstances
immunity
warranted
private
actors
point
simply
cases
decided
arise
longstanding
practice
field
immunity
law
footnotes
delia
also
suggests
filarsky
conduct
measured
reasonable
attorney
standard
whether
attorney
providing
advice
investigation
known
search
delia
personal
property
stored
home
lawless
see
brief
respondent
additional
inquiry
may
appropriate
although
conceived
substitute
warrantless
entry
inspection
order
filarsky
counseled
pass
muster
permissible
discovery
device
cf
homa
press
publishing
walling
subpoena
duces
tecum
corporation
business
records
authorized
fair
labor
standards
act
encountered
fourth
amendment
shoal
ninth
circuit
referred
cases
holding
public
employees
job
retention
conditioned
relinquishing
fifth
amendment
safeguard
uniformed
sanitation
men
commissioner
sanitation
city
new
york
gardner
broderick