anderson
creighton
argued
february
decided
june
petitioner
federal
bureau
investigation
agent
participated
law
enforcement
officers
warrantless
search
respondents
home
search
conducted
petitioner
believed
one
dixon
suspected
bank
robbery
committed
earlier
day
might
found
respondents
filed
action
petitioner
asserting
claim
damages
fourth
amendment
petitioner
removed
suit
federal
district
filed
motion
dismissal
summary
judgment
arguing
fourth
amendment
claim
barred
qualified
immunity
civil
damages
liability
discovery
occurred
granted
summary
judgment
ground
search
lawful
appeals
reversed
holding
search
lawfulness
determined
summary
judgment
factual
disputes
precluded
deciding
matter
law
search
supported
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
also
held
petitioner
entitled
summary
judgment
qualified
immunity
grounds
since
right
allegedly
violated
right
persons
protected
warrantless
searches
homes
unless
searching
officers
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
clearly
established
held
petitioner
entitled
summary
judgment
qualified
immunity
grounds
establish
matter
law
reasonable
officer
believed
search
comported
fourth
amendment
even
though
actually
whether
official
protected
qualified
immunity
may
held
personally
liable
allegedly
unlawful
official
action
generally
turns
objective
legal
reasonableness
action
assessed
light
legal
rules
clearly
established
time
action
taken
harlow
fitzgerald
order
conclude
right
official
allegedly
violated
clearly
established
contours
right
must
sufficiently
clear
reasonable
official
understand
violates
right
appeals
apparently
considered
fact
right
free
warrantless
searches
one
home
unless
searching
officers
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
clearly
established
erred
refusing
consider
argument
clearly
established
circumstances
petitioner
confronted
constitute
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
relevant
question
objective
question
whether
reasonable
officer
believed
petitioner
warrantless
search
lawful
light
clearly
established
law
information
searching
officers
possessed
petitioner
subjective
beliefs
search
irrelevant
pp
merit
respondents
argument
inappropriate
give
officials
alleged
violated
fourth
amendment
thus
necessarily
unreasonably
searched
seized
protection
qualified
immunity
intended
protect
reasonable
official
action
argument
foreclosed
fact
previously
extended
qualified
immunity
officials
alleged
violated
fourth
amendment
also
without
merit
respondents
suggestion
mitchell
forsyth
overruled
holding
qualified
immunity
may
never
extended
officials
conduct
unlawful
warrantless
searches
merit
respondents
contention
immunity
provided
police
officers
conduct
unlawful
warrantless
searches
innocent
third
parties
homes
search
fugitives
pp
scalia
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
blackmun
powell
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
joined
andrew
pincus
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
willard
deputy
solicitor
general
ayer
barbara
herwig
richard
olderman
john
sheehy
argued
cause
pro
hac
vice
respondents
brief
ronald
meshbesher
david
rudovsky
jack
novik
michael
avery
filed
brief
american
civil
liberties
union
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
federal
law
enforcement
officer
participates
search
violates
fourth
amendment
may
held
personally
liable
money
damages
reasonable
officer
believed
search
comported
fourth
amendment
petitioner
russell
anderson
agent
federal
bureau
investigation
november
anderson
state
federal
law
enforcement
officers
conducted
warrantless
search
home
respondents
creighton
family
search
conducted
anderson
believed
vadaain
dixon
man
suspected
bank
robbery
committed
earlier
day
might
found
creightons
later
filed
suit
anderson
minnesota
state
asserting
among
things
claim
money
damages
fourth
amendment
see
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
removing
suit
federal
district
anderson
filed
motion
dismiss
summary
judgment
arguing
bivens
claim
barred
anderson
qualified
immunity
civil
damages
liability
see
harlow
fitzgerald
discovery
took
place
district
granted
summary
judgment
ground
search
lawful
holding
undisputed
facts
revealed
anderson
probable
cause
search
creighton
home
failure
obtain
warrant
justified
presence
exigent
circumstances
app
pet
cert
creightons
appealed
appeals
eighth
circuit
reversed
creighton
paul
appeals
held
issue
lawfulness
search
properly
decided
summary
judgment
unresolved
factual
disputes
made
impossible
determine
matter
law
warrantless
search
supported
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
appeals
also
held
anderson
entitled
summary
judgment
qualified
immunity
grounds
since
right
anderson
alleged
violated
right
persons
protected
warrantless
searches
home
unless
searching
officers
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
clearly
established
ibid
anderson
filed
petition
certiorari
arguing
appeals
erred
refusing
consider
argument
entitled
summary
judgment
qualified
immunity
grounds
establish
matter
law
reasonable
officer
believed
search
lawful
granted
petition
consider
important
question
ii
government
officials
abuse
offices
action
damages
may
offer
realistic
avenue
vindication
constitutional
guarantees
harlow
fitzgerald
hand
permitting
damages
suits
government
officials
entail
substantial
social
costs
including
risk
fear
personal
monetary
liability
harassing
litigation
unduly
inhibit
officials
discharge
duties
ibid
cases
accommodated
conflicting
concerns
generally
providing
government
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
qualified
immunity
shielding
civil
damages
liability
long
actions
reasonably
thought
consistent
rights
alleged
violated
see
malley
briggs
qualified
immunity
protects
plainly
incompetent
knowingly
violate
law
police
officers
applying
warrants
immune
reasonable
officer
believed
probable
cause
support
application
mitchell
forsyth
officials
immune
unless
law
clearly
proscribed
actions
took
davis
scherer
brennan
concurring
part
dissenting
part
harlow
fitzgerald
supra
procunier
navarette
somewhat
concretely
whether
official
protected
qualified
immunity
may
held
personally
liable
allegedly
unlawful
official
action
generally
turns
objective
legal
reasonableness
action
harlow
assessed
light
legal
rules
clearly
established
time
taken
operation
standard
however
depends
substantially
upon
level
generality
relevant
legal
rule
identified
example
right
due
process
law
quite
clearly
established
due
process
clause
thus
sense
action
violates
clause
matter
unclear
may
particular
action
violation
violates
clearly
established
right
much
said
constitutional
statutory
violation
test
clearly
established
law
applied
level
generality
bear
relationship
objective
legal
reasonableness
touchstone
harlow
plaintiffs
able
convert
rule
qualified
immunity
cases
plainly
establish
rule
virtually
unqualified
liability
simply
alleging
violation
extremely
abstract
rights
harlow
transformed
guarantee
immunity
rule
pleading
approach
sum
destroy
balance
cases
strike
interests
vindication
citizens
constitutional
rights
public
officials
effective
performance
duties
making
impossible
officials
reasonably
anticipate
conduct
may
give
rise
liability
damages
davis
supra
surprising
therefore
cases
establish
right
official
alleged
violated
must
clearly
established
particularized
hence
relevant
sense
contours
right
must
sufficiently
clear
reasonable
official
understand
violates
right
say
official
action
protected
qualified
immunity
unless
action
question
previously
held
unlawful
see
mitchell
supra
say
light
law
unlawfulness
must
apparent
see
malley
supra
mitchell
supra
davis
supra
anderson
contends
appeals
misapplied
principles
agree
appeals
brief
discussion
qualified
immunity
consisted
little
assertion
general
right
anderson
alleged
violated
right
free
warrantless
searches
one
home
unless
searching
officers
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
clearly
established
appeals
specifically
refused
consider
argument
clearly
established
circumstances
anderson
confronted
constitute
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
previous
discussion
make
clear
refusal
erroneous
simply
follow
immediately
conclusion
firmly
established
warrantless
searches
supported
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
violate
fourth
amendment
anderson
search
objectively
legally
unreasonable
recognized
inevitable
law
enforcement
officials
cases
reasonably
mistakenly
conclude
probable
cause
present
indicated
cases
officials
like
officials
act
ways
reasonably
believe
lawful
held
personally
liable
see
malley
supra
true
conclusions
regarding
exigent
circumstances
follows
said
determination
whether
objectively
legally
reasonable
conclude
given
search
supported
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
often
require
examination
information
possessed
searching
officials
contrary
creightons
assertion
reintroduce
qualified
immunity
analysis
inquiry
officials
subjective
intent
harlow
sought
minimize
see
harlow
relevant
question
case
example
objective
albeit
question
whether
reasonable
officer
believed
anderson
warrantless
search
lawful
light
clearly
established
law
information
searching
officers
possessed
anderson
subjective
beliefs
search
irrelevant
principles
qualified
immunity
reaffirm
today
require
anderson
permitted
argue
entitled
summary
judgment
ground
light
clearly
established
principles
governing
warrantless
searches
matter
law
reasonably
believed
search
creightons
home
lawful
iii
addition
relying
reasoning
appeals
creightons
advance
three
alternative
grounds
affirmance
take
form
even
anderson
entitled
qualified
immunity
usual
principles
qualified
immunity
law
described
exception
made
principles
circumstances
case
note
outset
heavy
burden
argument
must
sustain
successful
emphasized
doctrine
qualified
immunity
reflects
balance
struck
across
board
harlow
supra
brennan
concurring
see
also
malley
executive
officers
general
qualified
immunity
represents
norm
quoting
harlow
supra
although
narrow
circumstances
provided
officials
absolute
immunity
see
nixon
fitzgerald
unwilling
complicate
qualified
immunity
analysis
making
scope
extent
immunity
turn
precise
nature
various
officials
duties
precise
character
particular
rights
alleged
violated
immunity
many
variants
modes
official
action
types
rights
give
conscientious
officials
assurance
protection
object
doctrine
provide
observation
mind
turn
particular
arguments
advanced
creightons
first
broadly
creightons
argue
inappropriate
give
officials
alleged
violated
fourth
amendment
thus
necessarily
unreasonably
searched
seized
protection
qualified
immunity
intended
protect
reasonable
official
action
possible
say
one
reasonably
acted
unreasonably
short
answer
argument
foreclosed
fact
previously
extended
qualified
immunity
officials
alleged
violated
fourth
amendment
see
malley
supra
police
officers
alleged
caused
unconstitutional
arrest
mitchell
forsyth
officials
alleged
conducted
warrantless
wiretaps
even
however
still
find
argument
unpersuasive
surface
appeal
attributable
circumstance
fourth
amendment
guarantees
expressed
terms
unreasonable
searches
seizures
equally
serviceable
term
undue
searches
seizures
employed
might
termed
reasonably
unreasonable
argument
application
harlow
fourth
amendment
available
available
application
harlow
fifth
amendment
term
reasonable
process
law
employed
fact
regardless
terminology
used
precise
content
constitution
guarantees
rests
upon
assessment
accommodation
governmental
need
individual
freedom
reasonable
creightons
objection
substance
applies
application
harlow
generally
frequently
observed
many
cases
point
amply
demonstrate
difficulty
determining
whether
particular
searches
seizures
comport
fourth
amendment
see
malley
supra
law
enforcement
officers
whose
judgments
making
difficult
determinations
objectively
legally
reasonable
held
personally
liable
damages
officials
making
analogous
determinations
areas
law
reasons
also
reject
creightons
narrower
suggestion
overrule
mitchell
supra
extending
qualified
immunity
officials
conducted
warrantless
wiretaps
holding
qualified
immunity
may
never
extended
officials
conduct
unlawful
warrantless
searches
finally
reject
creightons
narrowest
procrustean
proposal
immunity
provided
police
officers
conduct
unlawful
warrantless
searches
innocent
third
parties
homes
search
fugitives
rest
proposal
assertion
officers
conducting
searches
strictly
liable
english
common
law
fugitive
present
see
entick
carrington
tr
eng
although
true
observed
determinations
scope
official
immunity
made
light
tradition
malley
supra
never
suggested
precise
contours
official
immunity
slavishly
derived
often
arcane
rules
common
law
notion
plainly
contradicted
harlow
completely
reformulated
qualified
immunity
along
principles
embodied
common
law
replacing
inquiry
subjective
malice
frequently
required
common
law
objective
inquiry
legal
reasonableness
official
action
see
harlow
noted
harlow
clearly
expressed
understanding
general
principle
qualified
immunity
established
applied
across
board
approach
suggested
creightons
introduce
qualified
immunity
analysis
complexity
rivaling
found
sufficiently
daunting
deter
us
tailoring
doctrine
nature
officials
duties
rights
allegedly
violated
see
supra
field
unlawful
arrests
example
cursory
examination
restatement
second
torts
suggests
special
exceptions
general
rule
qualified
immunity
made
arrests
pursuant
warrant
outside
jurisdiction
issuing
authority
arrests
warrant
lapsed
arrests
without
warrant
complexity
unsuitability
approach
betrayed
fact
creightons
proposal
actually
apply
musty
rule
purportedly
justification
instead
suggests
exception
qualified
immunity
fugitive
searches
third
parties
dwellings
merely
english
rule
appears
provided
unsuccessful
fugitive
searches
third
parties
dwellings
moreover
sources
cited
creightons
appears
corollary
english
rule
search
successful
civil
action
lie
whether
probable
cause
search
existed
also
quite
prudently
quite
illogically
urged
upon
us
creightons
selective
use
common
law
general
rule
qualified
immunity
intended
provide
government
officials
ability
reasonably
anticipate
conduct
may
give
rise
liability
damages
davis
rule
applicable
officials
know
held
personally
liable
long
actions
reasonable
light
current
american
law
security
utterly
defeated
officials
unable
determine
whether
protected
rule
without
entangling
vagaries
english
american
common
law
unwilling
balkanize
rule
qualified
immunity
carving
exceptions
level
detail
creightons
propose
therefore
decline
make
exception
general
rule
qualified
immunity
cases
involving
allegedly
unlawful
warrantless
searches
innocent
third
parties
homes
search
fugitives
reasons
stated
vacate
judgment
appeals
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
dissent
seemingly
adopt
approach
seeks
avoid
unqualified
liability
follow
advancing
suggestion
officials
generally
though
law
enforcement
officials
see
post
officials
accused
violating
fourth
amendment
see
post
permitted
raise
defense
reasonable
good
faith
apparently
asserted
proved
trial
see
post
even
modified
even
fortunate
officials
modification
applies
approach
totally
abandon
concern
driving
force
behind
harlow
substantial
reformulation
principles
insubstantial
claims
government
officials
resolved
prior
discovery
summary
judgment
possible
harlow
passably
clever
plaintiff
always
able
identify
abstract
clearly
established
right
defendant
alleged
violated
defense
envisioned
dissent
available
trial
creightons
argue
qualified
immunity
doctrine
need
expanded
apply
circumstances
case
federal
government
various
state
governments
established
programs
reimburse
officials
expenses
liability
incurred
suits
challenging
actions
taken
official
capacities
holding
today
extend
official
qualified
immunity
beyond
bounds
articulated
harlow
subsequent
cases
argument
beside
point
moreover
even
assuming
conscientious
officials
care
personal
liability
liability
government
serve
creightons
reasonably
contend
programs
refer
make
reimbursement
sufficiently
certain
generally
available
justify
reconsideration
balance
struck
harlow
subsequent
cases
see
cfr
permitting
reimbursement
department
justice
employees
attorney
general
finds
reimbursement
appropriate
harper
james
gray
law
torts
ed
listing
various
state
programs
decisions
demonstrate
emptiness
dissent
assertion
oday
makes
fundamental
error
simply
assuming
harlow
immunity
appropriate
federal
law
enforcement
officers
high
government
officials
post
omitted
last
term
unanimously
held
state
federal
law
enforcement
officers
protected
qualified
immunity
described
harlow
malley
briggs
see
reason
overrule
holding
course
american
rather
english
tradition
relevant
cf
malley
supra
american
rule
appears
considerably
less
draconian
english
see
restatement
second
torts
officers
arrest
warrant
privileged
enter
third
party
house
effect
arrest
reasonably
believe
fugitive
noting
discovery
yet
taken
place
creightons
renew
argument
whatever
appropriate
qualified
immunity
standard
discovery
required
anderson
summary
judgment
motion
granted
think
matter
somewhat
complicated
one
purposes
harlow
qualified
immunity
standard
protect
public
officials
discovery
peculiarly
disruptive
effective
government
omitted
reason
emphasized
qualified
immunity
questions
resolved
earliest
possible
stage
litigation
see
also
mitchell
forsyth
thus
remand
first
determined
whether
actions
creightons
allege
anderson
taken
actions
reasonable
officer
believed
lawful
anderson
entitled
dismissal
prior
discovery
cf
ibid
actions
anderson
claims
took
different
creightons
allege
actions
reasonable
officer
believed
lawful
discovery
may
necessary
anderson
motion
summary
judgment
qualified
immunity
grounds
resolved
course
discovery
tailored
specifically
question
anderson
qualified
immunity
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
dissenting
case
beguiling
apparent
simplicity
accordingly
represents
task
clarification
settled
principles
qualified
immunity
apply
damages
suits
brought
federal
officials
opinion
however
announces
new
rule
law
protects
federal
agents
make
forcible
nighttime
entries
homes
innocent
citizens
without
probable
cause
without
warrant
without
valid
emergency
justification
warrantless
search
stunningly
restricts
constitutional
accountability
police
creating
false
dichotomy
police
entitlement
summary
judgment
immunity
grounds
damages
liability
every
police
misstep
responding
dichotomy
uncritical
application
precedents
qualified
immunity
developed
quite
different
group
high
public
office
holders
displaying
remarkably
little
fidelity
countervailing
principles
individual
liberty
privacy
infuse
fourth
amendment
turn
opinion
appropriate
identify
issue
confronted
appeals
apparent
correct
vacating
district
award
summary
judgment
petitioner
advance
discovery
appeals
understood
principle
qualified
immunity
implemented
harlow
fitzgerald
shield
government
officials
performing
discretionary
functions
exposure
damages
liability
unless
conduct
violated
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
applying
principle
appeals
held
respondents
fourth
amendment
rights
exigent
circumstances
doctrine
clearly
established
time
search
creighton
paul
moreover
apparently
referring
extraordinary
circumstances
defense
left
open
harlow
defendant
prove
neither
knew
known
relevant
legal
standard
determined
petitioner
reasonably
unaware
clearly
established
principles
law
thus
reviewing
appeals
judgment
rejecting
petitioner
anderson
claim
immunity
first
question
decided
whether
harlow
fitzgerald
requires
immunity
federal
law
enforcement
agent
advances
claim
reasonable
person
position
believed
particular
conduct
violate
rights
concedes
clearly
established
negative
answer
question
required
harlow
provides
inappropriate
measure
immunity
police
acts
violate
fourth
amendment
challenged
also
petitioner
make
showing
required
harlow
immunity
second
apart
particular
requirements
harlow
doctrine
full
review
appeals
judgment
raises
question
whether
approve
double
standard
reasonableness
constitutional
standard
already
embodied
fourth
amendment
even
generous
standard
protects
officer
reasonably
believed
conduct
constitutionally
reasonable
careful
analysis
set
questions
helpful
assessing
continuing
embrace
double
standard
reasonableness
begin
discussion
petitioner
claim
entitlement
harlow
immunity
ii
accepting
moment
double
standard
reasonableness
affirm
judgment
appeals
correctly
concluded
petitioner
satisfied
harlow
standard
immunity
inquiry
upon
immunity
determination
hinges
case
illustrates
important
limitation
reach
opinion
harlow
defendants
claims
immunity
summary
judgment
stage
harlow
mitchell
forsyth
bolstered
two
policy
concerns
attenuated
suits
law
enforcement
agents
field
based
fourth
amendment
one
substantial
public
interest
allowing
government
officials
devote
time
energy
press
public
business
without
burden
distractions
invariably
accompany
defense
lawsuit
harlow
mitchell
second
underpinning
harlow
special
unfairness
associated
charging
government
officials
knowledge
rule
law
yet
clearly
recognized
harlow
mitchell
thus
plaintiff
claim
predicated
principle
law
clearly
established
time
alleged
wrong
concerns
favor
determination
immunity
advance
trial
equal
importance
pretrial
discovery
process
commenced
concern
depletion
diversion
public
officials
energies
led
harlow
abolish
doctrine
official
deprived
immunity
summary
judgment
plaintiff
alleged
official
acted
malicious
intent
deprive
constitutional
rights
see
wood
strickland
decision
today
however
fails
recognize
harlow
removal
one
arrow
plaintiff
arsenal
summary
judgment
stage
also
preclude
official
advancing
reasonableness
claim
trial
character
conduct
established
evidence
warranted
strategy
rule
harlow
case
contrast
focuses
character
plaintiff
legal
claim
properly
invoked
protects
government
executive
spending
time
depositions
document
review
conferences
litigation
strategy
consistently
overriding
concern
avoid
litigation
subjective
good
faith
government
officials
harlow
allow
discovery
issue
whether
official
alleged
conduct
violated
clearly
established
constitutional
right
determined
motion
summary
judgment
harlow
implicitly
assumed
many
immunity
issues
determined
matter
law
parties
exchanged
depositions
answers
interrogatories
admissions
considerations
underlying
formulation
immunity
rule
harlow
executive
branch
officials
however
quite
distinct
led
prior
recognition
immunity
federal
law
enforcement
officials
suits
founded
constitution
observation
hardly
surprising
question
immunity
acquires
importance
cause
action
created
practical
consequences
holding
remedy
authorized
public
official
essentially
flowing
conclusion
official
absolute
immunity
mitchell
forsyth
stevens
concurring
judgment
probing
question
immunity
raised
case
therefore
must
begin
rote
recitation
harlow
standard
examination
cause
action
brought
immunity
question
us
play
first
instance
every
student
federal
jurisdiction
quickly
learns
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
held
bivens
cause
action
federal
agents
recover
money
damages
injuries
suffered
result
agents
violation
fourth
amendment
addition
finding
cause
action
available
district
case
relied
alternative
holding
respondents
immune
liability
official
position
appeals
second
circuit
passed
immunity
ruling
consider
remand
bivens
six
unknown
named
agents
federal
bureau
narcotics
appeals
articulated
dual
standard
reasonableness
initial
matter
rejected
agents
claim
barr
matteo
recognized
immunity
official
performs
discretionary
acts
levels
government
concept
duty
encompasses
sound
exercise
discretionary
authority
second
circuit
wisely
noted
sorry
state
affairs
officer
discretion
enter
dwelling
without
warrant
probable
cause
nevertheless
recognized
need
balance
protection
police
demands
every
person
manages
escape
toils
criminal
law
right
citizens
free
unlawful
arrests
searches
according
second
circuit
officer
must
held
act
peril
obtain
immunity
need
allege
prove
probable
cause
constitutional
sense
instead
agent
prevail
prove
believed
good
faith
conduct
lawful
also
belief
reasonable
ibid
thus
affirmative
defense
reasonable
good
faith
available
trial
contrast
immunity
claim
harlow
type
foreclose
trial
available
view
appropriate
strength
reasonable
defense
specific
case
course
vary
trial
evidence
facts
upon
officer
relied
made
challenged
search
arrest
appeals
recognized
assuring
police
officers
discretion
act
illegal
ways
advantageous
society
executives
attorney
general
senior
assistant
president
must
latitude
take
action
legally
uncharted
areas
without
constant
exposure
damages
suits
therefore
entitled
rule
qualified
immunity
many
pretrial
trial
proceedings
quite
different
considerations
led
second
circuit
recognize
affirmative
defense
reasonable
good
faith
bivens
case
today
nevertheless
makes
fundamental
error
simply
assuming
harlow
immunity
appropriate
federal
law
enforcement
officers
petitioner
high
government
officials
doctrinal
reach
precedential
sweep
moment
forgetfulness
multiplied
interchangeability
immunity
precedents
suits
state
officials
bivens
actions
federal
officials
moreover
moment
restricting
criticism
analysis
four
corners
harlow
framework
errs
treating
denial
immunity
failure
satisfy
harlow
standard
necessarily
tantamount
ruling
defendants
exposed
damages
liability
every
violation
fourth
amendment
denial
necessarily
foreclose
affirmative
defense
based
second
circuit
thesis
bivens
officer
may
liable
conduct
complied
lesser
standard
reasonableness
constitutional
standard
violated
failure
recognize
federal
agents
may
retain
partial
shield
damages
liability
although
necessarily
pretrial
trial
proceedings
leads
erroneous
conclusion
petitioner
must
harlow
immunity
else
none
save
fourth
amendment
part
iii
explain
latter
alternative
appropriate
assert
limited
proposition
appeals
quite
correctly
rejected
anderson
claim
entitled
immunity
harlow
harlow
speak
extent
official
insulation
monetary
liability
official
concedes
constitutional
right
charged
violating
deeply
etched
jurisprudence
argues
reasonably
believed
particular
actions
comported
constitutional
command
case
district
judge
granted
anderson
motion
summary
judgment
convinced
agent
probable
cause
enter
creightons
home
absence
search
warrant
justified
exigent
circumstances
words
district
judge
concluded
matter
law
substantive
constitutional
violation
respondents
appealed
petitioner
argued
even
constitution
violated
entitled
immunity
law
defining
exigent
circumstances
clearly
established
searched
creightons
home
setting
aside
order
granting
summary
judgment
appeals
concluded
many
essential
factual
matters
sharply
disputed
creightons
version
incident
accepted
neither
probable
cause
justification
search
therefore
necessary
try
case
find
whether
fourth
amendment
violated
creighton
paul
appeals
conclusion
summary
judgment
issues
appropriate
advance
discovery
unquestionably
correct
appeals
also
correct
rejecting
petitioner
argument
based
holding
harlow
issue
resolved
motion
summary
judgment
discovery
taken
place
appeals
rejected
argument
convinced
rule
law
clear
also
rejected
argument
equally
persuasive
ground
namely
harlow
requirement
concerning
clearly
established
law
applies
rule
plaintiff
relies
doubt
proposition
warrantless
entry
home
without
probable
cause
always
unlawful
even
reach
inquiry
unless
defendant
shown
probable
cause
trying
establish
search
legal
notwithstanding
failure
police
obtain
warrant
thus
assume
appeals
correct
conclusion
probable
cause
established
also
correct
rejecting
petitioner
claim
harlow
immunity
either
exception
warrant
requirement
clearly
established
warrantless
entry
home
without
probable
cause
always
unlawful
whether
exigent
circumstances
present
anderson
argued
relevant
rule
law
whether
requirement
exception
warrant
requirement
clearly
established
november
rather
argues
competent
officer
might
concluded
particular
set
facts
faced
constitute
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
reasonable
belief
conduct
engaged
within
law
suffices
establish
immunity
factual
predicate
anderson
argument
found
creightons
complaint
rather
affidavits
filed
support
motion
summary
judgment
obviously
respondents
must
given
opportunity
discovery
test
accuracy
completeness
factual
basis
immunity
claim
neither
petitioner
disagrees
proposition
therefore
pellucidly
clear
appeals
correct
conclusion
record
support
summary
judgment
decision
today
represents
departure
view
expressed
two
years
ago
mitchell
forsyth
held
petitioner
entitled
qualified
immunity
authorizing
unconstitutional
clearly
established
warrantless
domestic
security
wiretapping
violated
fourth
amendment
added
intend
suggest
official
always
immune
liability
suit
warrantless
search
merely
warrant
requirement
never
explicitly
held
apply
search
conducted
identical
circumstances
cases
legitimate
question
whether
exception
warrant
requirement
exists
said
warrantless
search
violates
clearly
established
law
iii
although
question
appear
argued
decided
appeals
decided
apply
double
standard
reasonableness
damages
actions
federal
agents
alleged
violated
innocent
citizen
fourth
amendment
rights
double
standard
mean
standard
affords
law
enforcement
official
two
layers
insulation
liability
adverse
consequence
suppression
evidence
already
adopted
double
standard
applying
exclusionary
rule
searches
authorized
invalid
warrant
leon
seems
prepared
even
anxious
case
remove
requirement
officer
must
obey
fourth
amendment
entering
private
home
remain
convinced
suit
damages
well
hearing
motion
suppress
evidence
official
search
seizure
unreasonable
reasonable
time
stevens
dissenting
federal
official
may
impunity
ignore
limitations
controlling
law
placed
powers
butz
economou
effect
literally
unwarranted
extension
qualified
immunity
fear
allows
federal
agents
ignore
limitations
warrant
requirements
impunity
name
avoiding
interference
legitimate
law
enforcement
activities
even
though
requirement
limits
police
exercise
coercive
authority
form
immunity
frees
exercise
power
without
fear
strict
liability
see
pierson
ray
advances
four
arguments
support
position
even
though
entry
private
home
constitutionally
unreasonable
give
rise
monetary
liability
reasonable
officer
believed
reasonable
first
standard
vague
unfair
expect
law
enforcement
officers
comply
second
reasons
saddling
high
government
officials
burdens
litigation
apply
equally
law
enforcement
officers
third
nothing
new
decision
today
previously
extended
qualified
immunity
officials
alleged
violated
fourth
amendment
ante
finally
holding
police
officers
constitutional
standard
reasonableness
unduly
inhibit
officials
discharge
duties
ante
none
arguments
behalf
double
standard
reasonableness
persuasive
unquestionably
always
uncertainty
application
standard
particular
cases
nevertheless
standard
survived
test
time
england
america
see
hale
history
pleas
crown
jolowicz
lewis
winfield
tort
ed
weber
birth
probable
cause
rev
except
cases
officer
relies
fact
magistrate
issued
warrant
reason
believe
newly
minted
standard
provide
certainty
constitutional
standard
indeed
worth
emphasizing
standard
recognizes
fair
leeway
law
enforcement
officers
must
carrying
dangerous
work
concept
probable
cause
leaves
room
mistakes
provided
always
mistakes
made
reasonable
officer
see
lafave
search
seizure
ed
find
nothing
new
standard
provides
officer
guidance
statement
opinion
brinegar
almost
four
decades
ago
standards
seek
safeguard
citizens
rash
unreasonable
interferences
privacy
unfounded
charges
crime
also
seek
give
fair
leeway
enforcing
law
community
protection
many
situations
confront
officers
course
executing
duties
less
ambiguous
room
must
allowed
mistakes
part
mistakes
must
reasonable
men
acting
facts
leading
sensibly
conclusions
probability
rule
probable
cause
practical
nontechnical
conception
affording
best
compromise
found
accommodating
often
opposing
interests
requiring
unduly
hamper
law
enforcement
allow
less
leave
citizens
mercy
officers
whim
caprice
evaluates
police
conduct
relating
arrest
guideline
good
faith
probable
cause
case
higher
officers
executive
branch
however
inquiry
far
complex
since
range
decisions
choices
whether
formulation
policy
legislation
budgets
decisions
virtually
infinite
ince
options
chief
executive
principal
subordinates
must
consider
far
broader
far
subtle
made
officials
less
responsibility
range
discretion
must
comparably
broad
argument
police
officers
need
special
immunity
encourage
take
vigorous
enforcement
action
uncertain
right
make
forcible
entry
private
home
already
accepted
jurisprudence
held
police
act
reasonably
entering
house
probable
cause
believe
fugitive
house
exigent
circumstances
make
impracticable
obtain
warrant
interpretation
fourth
amendment
allows
room
police
intrusion
without
warrant
privacy
even
innocent
citizens
pierson
ray
held
police
officers
liable
action
brought
acted
good
faith
probable
cause
explained
prevailing
view
country
peace
officer
arrests
someone
probable
cause
liable
false
arrest
simply
innocence
suspect
later
proved
restatement
second
torts
harper
james
law
torts
ward
fidelity
deposit
maryland
ca
cir
policeman
lot
unhappy
must
choose
charged
dereliction
duty
arrest
probable
cause
mulcted
damages
ibid
thus
found
intolerable
use
standard
protect
police
officer
exposure
liability
simply
reasonable
conduct
subsequently
shown
mistaken
today
however
counts
law
enforcement
interest
twice
individual
privacy
interest
approach
reflects
understandable
sympathy
plight
officer
overriding
interest
unfettered
law
enforcement
ascribes
far
lesser
importance
privacy
interest
innocent
citizens
framers
fourth
amendment
importance
interest
possible
magnitude
invasion
illustrated
facts
case
home
innocent
family
invaded
several
officers
without
warrant
without
owner
consent
substantial
show
force
blunt
expressions
disrespect
law
rights
family
members
case
comes
us
must
assume
intrusion
violated
fourth
amendment
see
steagald
proceeding
assumption
see
reason
family
interest
security
home
accorded
lesser
weight
government
interest
carrying
invasion
unlawful
arguably
government
considers
important
discourage
conduct
provide
indemnity
officers
preferably
however
furnish
kind
training
law
enforcement
agents
entirely
eliminate
necessity
distinguish
conduct
competent
officer
considers
reasonable
conduct
constitution
deems
reasonable
federal
officials
liable
mere
mistakes
judgment
whether
mistake
one
fact
one
law
butz
economou
hand
surely
innocent
family
bear
entire
risk
trial
benefit
hindsight
find
federal
agent
reasonably
believed
break
home
equipped
force
arms
without
probable
cause
warrant
iv
entirely
faithful
traditions
embedded
law
since
adoption
bill
rights
wrote
fourth
amendment
protects
individual
privacy
variety
settings
none
zone
privacy
clearly
defined
bounded
unambiguous
physical
dimensions
individual
home
zone
finds
roots
clear
specific
constitutional
terms
right
people
secure
houses
shall
violated
language
unequivocally
establishes
proposition
core
fourth
amendment
stands
right
man
retreat
home
free
unreasonable
governmental
intrusion
silverman
terms
apply
equally
seizures
property
seizures
persons
fourth
amendment
drawn
firm
line
entrance
house
absent
exigent
circumstances
threshold
may
reasonably
crossed
without
warrant
payton
new
york
respectfully
dissent
fourth
amendment
provides
right
people
secure
persons
houses
papers
effects
unreasonable
searches
seizures
shall
violated
warrants
shall
issue
upon
probable
cause
supported
oath
affirmation
particularly
describing
place
searched
persons
things
seized
theme
also
pervades
opinions
construing
scope
official
immunity
suits
brought
precedents
provide
guidance
causes
action
based
directly
constitution
untenable
draw
distinction
purposes
immunity
law
suits
brought
state
officials
suits
brought
directly
constitution
federal
officials
harlow
fitzgerald
quoting
butz
economou
accord
malley
briggs
unfair
expect
officials
anticipate
changes
law
prescience
escapes
even
able
scholars
lawyers
judges
precedents
recognize
qualified
immunity
entirely
consistent
requirement
federal
officials
act
way
consistent
awareness
fundamental
constitutional
rights
enumerated
bill
rights
constitution
scheuer
rhodes
based
qualified
immunity
high
government
officials
official
acts
upon
existence
reasonable
grounds
belief
formed
time
light
circumstances
coupled
belief
wood
strickland
observed
standard
knowledge
basic
unquestioned
constitutional
rights
students
imposes
neither
unfair
burden
upon
person
assuming
responsible
public
office
requiring
high
degree
intelligence
judgment
proper
fulfillment
duties
unwarranted
burden
light
value
civil
rights
legal
system
donaldson
ruled
immunity
inquiry
relevant
part
whether
state
hospital
superintendent
charged
unconstitutionally
confining
patient
knew
reasonably
known
action
violate
patient
constitutional
rights
procunier
navarette
wrote
reasonably
expected
aware
constitutional
right
yet
declared
petitioners
act
disregard
established
law
conduct
reasonably
characterized
good
faith
wood
strickland
law
time
clearly
established
official
reasonably
expected
anticipate
subsequent
legal
developments
fairly
said
know
law
forbade
conduct
previously
identified
unlawful
harlow
logically
reasoning
extend
cases
one
constitutional
command
exception
rule
conduct
responds
narrowly
defined
category
factual
situations
clearly
established
dispute
whether
situation
officer
confronted
fits
within
category
cf
gomez
toledo
defendant
burden
pleading
good
faith
affirmative
defense
reliance
objective
reasonableness
official
conduct
measured
reference
clearly
established
law
avoid
excessive
disruption
government
permit
resolution
many
insubstantial
claims
summary
judgment
summary
judgment
judge
appropriately
may
determine
currently
applicable
law
whether
law
clearly
established
time
action
occurred
law
time
clearly
established
official
reasonably
expected
anticipate
subsequent
legal
developments
fairly
said
know
law
forbade
conduct
previously
identified
unlawful
threshold
immunity
question
resolved
discovery
allowed
law
clearly
established
immunity
defense
ordinarily
fail
since
reasonably
competent
public
official
know
law
governing
conduct
harlow
footnotes
omitted
appeals
bivens
justified
defense
basis
need
protect
officer
hazards
associated
trying
predict
whether
agree
assessment
particular
set
facts
constituted
probable
cause
explained
numerous
dissents
concurrences
reversals
especially
last
decade
indicate
even
learned
experienced
jurists
difficulty
defining
rules
govern
determination
probable
cause
without
warrant
tries
find
way
thicket
police
officer
must
held
act
peril
bivens
six
unknown
named
agents
federal
bureau
narcotics
citations
omitted
inferable
point
remand
appeals
bivens
ventilate
question
possible
existence
kind
qualified
privilege
appeals
sustained
rather
issue
immunity
bator
mishkin
shapiro
wechsler
hart
wechsler
federal
courts
federal
system
ed
asserts
assumption
merely
reflects
holding
last
term
malley
briggs
see
ante
malley
case
however
rejected
police
officer
claim
entitled
absolute
immunity
acted
pursuant
arrest
warrant
issued
magistrate
specifically
declined
accept
petitioner
invitation
expand
qualified
immunity
common
law
absolute
immunity
concluded
case
officer
applying
warrant
rule
qualified
immunity
based
harlow
standard
give
ample
room
mistaken
judgments
opinion
carefully
avoided
comment
warrantless
searches
proper
application
harlow
cases
claim
qualified
immunity
evaluated
advance
discovery
test
clearly
established
law
applied
level
generality
laintiffs
able
convert
rule
qualified
immunity
cases
plainly
establish
rule
virtually
unqualified
liability
ante
consider
possibility
objective
reasonableness
officer
conduct
may
depend
resolution
factual
dispute
dispute
may
preclude
entry
summary
judgment
despite
intimation
contrary
see
ante
necessarily
prevent
jury
resolving
factual
issues
officer
favor
thereafter
concluding
conduct
objectively
reasonable
also
made
argument
district
see
memorandum
points
authorities
record
harlow
standard
qualified
immunity
precludes
plaintiff
alleging
official
malice
order
defeat
defense
adopting
purely
objective
standard
however
harlow
may
inapplicable
least
two
types
cases
first
plaintiff
obtain
damages
official
culpable
state
mind
established
see
allen
scribner
note
qualified
immunity
government
officials
problem
unconstitutional
purpose
civil
rights
litigation
yale
second
official
conduct
susceptible
determination
violated
clearly
established
law
regulated
extremely
general
deeply
entrenched
norm
command
due
process
probable
cause
principle
clearly
established
whether
brand
official
planned
conduct
illegal
often
ascertained
without
reference
facts
may
dispute
see
reardon
wroan
police
officers
denied
qualified
immunity
summary
judgment
conclusion
probable
cause
found
objectively
unreasonable
facts
viewed
light
favorable
plaintiffs
jasinski
adams
per
curiam
federal
agent
denied
qualified
immunity
summary
judgment
genuine
issue
probable
cause
deary
three
police
officers
police
officers
denied
qualified
immunity
summary
judgment
genuine
issue
probable
cause
opinion
reveals
little
interest
facts
case
complaint
unquestionably
alleged
violation
clearly
established
rule
law
instead
focuses
attention
hypothetical
case
complaint
drafted
passably
clever
plaintiff
able
allege
violation
extremely
abstract
rights
ante
concerned
average
citizen
alleged
law
enforcement
officers
forced
way
home
without
warrant
without
probable
cause
constitutional
rule
allegedly
violated
case
concrete
clearly
established
see
ante
see
brief
petitioner
frequently
observed
many
cases
point
amply
demonstrate
difficulty
determining
whether
particular
searches
seizures
comport
fourth
amendment
ante
law
enforcement
officers
whose
judgments
making
difficult
determinations
objectively
legally
reasonable
held
personally
liable
damages
officials
making
analogous
determinations
areas
law
ibid
intense
scrutiny
people
press
congress
traditional
method
deterring
violations
constitution
high
officers
executive
branch
unless
congress
authorizes
remedies
presumably
intends
retributions
violations
undertaken
political
action
congress
best
position
decide
whether
incremental
deterrence
added
civil
damages
remedy
outweighs
adverse
effect
exposure
personal
liability
may
governmental
decisionmaking
however
balance
struck
surely
national
interest
enabling
cabinet
officers
responsibilities
area
perform
sensitive
duties
decisiveness
without
potentially
ruinous
hesitation
mitchell
forsyth
stevens
concurring
judgment
exception
searches
conducted
pursuant
warrants
intended
signal
unwillingness
strictly
enforce
requirements
fourth
amendment
believe
effect
already
suggested
exception
turning
objective
reasonableness
difficult
apply
practice
officers
acted
pursuant
warrant
prosecution
ordinarily
able
establish
objective
good
faith
without
substantial
expenditure
judicial
time
leon
question
whether
probable
cause
depends
reasonably
believed
reference
facts
confronted
judge
instructed
passage
quoted
earlier
go
instruct
jury
even
police
acted
without
probable
cause
exonerated
reasonably
though
erroneously
believed
acting
reasonably
confuse
jury
give
defendants
two
bites
apple
llaguno
mingey
posner
en
banc
appeals
described
search
respondents
home
detail
opinion
reads
part
follows
case
dismissed
anderson
motion
summary
judgment
set
facts
light
favorable
creightons
draw
inferences
underlying
facts
favor
adickes
kress
night
november
sarisse
robert
creighton
three
young
daughters
spending
quiet
evening
home
spotlight
suddenly
flashed
front
window
creighton
opened
door
confronted
several
uniformed
plain
clothes
officers
many
brandishing
shotguns
officers
white
creightons
black
creighton
claims
none
officers
responded
asked
wanted
instead
account
verified
paul
police
report
one
officers
told
keep
hands
sight
officers
rushed
door
creighton
asked
search
warrant
one
officers
told
search
warrant
need
one
watch
much
tv
creighton
asked
officers
put
guns
away
children
frightened
officers
refused
creighton
awoke
shrieking
children
confronted
officer
pointed
shotgun
allegedly
observed
officers
yelling
three
daughters
sit
damn
asses
stop
screaming
asked
officer
hell
going
officer
allegedly
explain
situation
simply
said
make
damn
kids
sit
couch
make
shut
one
officers
asked
creighton
red
silver
car
creighton
led
officers
downstairs
garage
maroon
oldsmobile
parked
one
officers
punched
face
knocking
ground
causing
bleed
mouth
forehead
creighton
alleges
attempting
move
past
officer
open
garage
door
officer
panicked
hit
officer
claims
creighton
attempted
grab
shotgun
even
though
creighton
suspect
crime
contraband
home
person
shaunda
creighton
daughter
witnessed
assault
screamed
mother
come
help
claims
one
officers
hit
creighton
phoned
mother
officer
allegedly
kicked
grabbed
phone
told
hang
damn
phone
told
children
run
neighbor
house
safety
children
ran
plain
clothes
officer
chased
creightons
neighbor
allegedly
told
creighton
officer
ran
house
grabbed
shaunda
shoulders
shook
neighbor
allegedly
told
officer
ca
see
shock
leave
alone
get
house
creighton
mother
later
brought
shaunda
emergency
room
children
hospital
arm
injury
caused
officer
rough
handling
melee
family
members
friends
began
arriving
creighton
home
creighton
claims
embarrassed
front
family
friends
invasion
home
rough
treatment
suspects
major
crime
time
asked
anderson
search
warrant
allegedly
replied
need
damn
search
warrant
looking
fugitive
officers
discover
allegedly
unspecified
fugitive
creightons
home
evidence
whatsoever
creightons
involved
type
criminal
activity
nonetheless
officers
arrested
handcuffed
creighton
obstruction
justice
brought
police
station
jailed
overnight
released
without
charged
creighton
paul
citation
omitted
case
involves
rule
applied
conduct
law
enforcement
officer
employed
federal
government
justice
jackson
dissenting
opinion
brinegar
especially
pertinent
wrote
part
fourth
amendment
rights
protest
mere
rights
belong
catalog
indispensable
freedoms
among
deprivations
rights
none
effective
cowing
population
crushing
spirit
individual
putting
terror
every
heart
uncontrolled
search
seizure
one
first
effective
weapons
arsenal
every
arbitrary
government
holding
federal
law
enforcement
officer
immune
reasonable
officer
believed
search
consistent
fourth
amendment
raises
difficulties
application
creation
leon
exception
exclusionary
rule
police
officer
reliance
invalid
warrant
objectively
reasonable
suppose
example
challenge
search
seizure
conducted
fbi
agent
defendant
shows
agent
required
aware
fully
aware
relevant
fourth
amendment
law
reasonable
reliance
inquiry
turn
whether
particular
fbi
agent
conduct
lived
standards
expected
someone
apprised
apprised
relevant
fourth
amendment
law
enough
agent
conduct
met
lower
standard
average
police
officer
th
individualized
objective
standard
test
leon
motions
suppress
may
well
require
far
greater
expenditure
judicial
time
seems
think
devoted
protecting
fourth
amendment
interests
wasserstrom
mertens
exclusionary
rule
scaffold
fair
trial
crim
rev
footnotes
omitted
axiomatic
physical
entry
home
chief
evil
wording
fourth
amendment
directed
welsh
wisconsin
quoting
district