saucier
katz
et
argued
march
decided
june
respondent
katz
president
respondent
defense
animals
filed
suit
pursuant
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
inter
alios
petitioner
saucier
military
policeman
katz
alleged
among
things
saucier
violated
fourth
amendment
rights
using
excessive
force
arresting
protested
vice
president
gore
speech
san
francisco
army
base
district
declined
grant
saucier
summary
judgment
qualified
immunity
grounds
affirming
ninth
circuit
made
qualified
immunity
inquiry
first
found
law
governing
saucier
conduct
clearly
established
incident
occurred
therefore
moved
second
step
determine
reasonable
officer
believed
light
clearly
established
law
conduct
lawful
concluded
step
merits
fourth
amendment
excessive
force
claim
identical
since
concern
objective
reasonableness
officer
conduct
light
circumstances
officer
faced
scene
thus
found
summary
judgment
based
qualified
immunity
inappropriate
held
qualified
immunity
ruling
requires
analysis
susceptible
fusion
question
whether
unreasonable
force
used
making
arrest
ninth
circuit
approach
reconciled
anderson
creighton
qualified
immunity
defense
must
considered
proper
sequence
ruling
made
early
proceedings
cost
expenses
trial
avoided
defense
dispositive
immunity
entitlement
stand
trial
defense
liability
mitchell
forsyth
initial
inquiry
whether
constitutional
right
violated
facts
alleged
right
violated
need
inquiry
immunity
however
violation
made
favorable
view
parties
submissions
next
sequential
step
whether
right
clearly
established
inquiry
must
undertaken
light
case
specific
context
broad
general
proposition
relevant
dispositive
inquiry
whether
clear
reasonable
officer
conduct
unlawful
situation
confronted
see
wilson
layne
ninth
circuit
approach
deny
summary
judgment
material
issue
fact
remains
excessive
force
claim
undermine
goal
qualified
immunity
avoid
excessive
disruption
government
permit
resolution
many
insubstantial
claims
summary
judgment
harlow
fitzgerald
law
put
officer
notice
conduct
clearly
unlawful
summary
judgment
based
qualified
immunity
appropriate
ninth
circuit
concluded
qualified
immunity
duplicative
excessive
force
case
thus
eliminating
need
second
step
holding
qualified
immunity
applied
fourth
amendment
context
official
misconduct
claim
anderson
rejected
argument
distinction
reasonableness
standard
warrantless
searches
qualified
immunity
inquiry
attempt
distinguish
anderson
katz
claims
subsequent
graham
connor
decision
set
forth
excessive
force
analysis
indistinguishable
qualified
immunity
thus
rendering
separate
immunity
inquiry
superfluous
inappropriate
cases
contrary
arguments
immunity
excessive
force
inquiries
remain
distinct
graham
graham
sets
forth
factors
relevant
merits
constitutional
excessive
force
claim
include
severity
crime
whether
suspect
poses
threat
officers
others
whether
actively
resisting
arrest
attempting
evade
arrest
flight
officer
reasonably
mistakenly
believed
suspect
likely
fight
back
instance
officer
justified
using
force
fact
needed
qualified
immunity
inquiry
concern
hand
acknowledge
reasonable
mistakes
made
legal
constraints
particular
police
conduct
officer
might
correctly
perceive
relevant
facts
mistaken
understanding
whether
particular
amount
force
legal
circumstances
pp
petitioner
entitled
qualified
immunity
assuming
constitutional
violation
occurred
facts
alleged
question
whether
general
prohibition
source
clearly
established
law
contravened
circumstances
circumstances
presented
petitioner
included
duty
protect
vice
president
safety
security
persons
unknown
number
clearly
established
rule
prohibiting
acting
conclusion
confirmed
uncontested
fact
force
used
dragging
katz
area
shoving
placing
van
excessive
respondent
suffered
hurt
injury
pp
reversed
remanded
kennedy
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
thomas
joined
souter
joined
parts
ii
ginsburg
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
stevens
breyer
joined
souter
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
donald
saucier
petitioner
elliot
katz
defense
animals
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
case
citizen
alleged
excessive
force
used
arrest
arresting
officer
asserted
defense
qualified
immunity
matter
address
whether
requisite
analysis
determine
qualified
immunity
intertwined
question
whether
officer
used
excessive
force
making
arrest
qualified
immunity
constitutional
violation
issues
treated
one
question
decided
trier
fact
appeals
held
inquiries
merge
single
question
reverse
hold
ruling
qualified
immunity
requires
analysis
susceptible
fusion
question
whether
unreasonable
force
used
making
arrest
autumn
presidio
army
base
san
francisco
site
event
celebrate
conversion
base
national
park
among
speakers
vice
president
albert
gore
attracted
several
hundred
observers
military
general
public
attendance
hand
celebrate
however
respondent
elliot
katz
concerned
army
letterman
hospital
used
conducting
experiments
animals
katz
president
group
called
defense
animals
although
group
respondents
issues
discuss
center
upon
katz
refer
respondent
voice
opposition
possibility
hospital
might
used
experiments
respondent
brought
cloth
banner
approximately
feet
read
please
keep
animal
torture
national
parks
past
respondent
aware
members
public
asked
leave
military
base
engaged
certain
activities
distributing
handbills
kept
banner
concealed
jacket
walked
base
area
designated
speakers
contained
seating
general
public
separated
stage
fence
respondent
sat
front
row
public
seating
area
time
vice
president
gore
began
speaking
respondent
removed
banner
jacket
started
unfold
walked
toward
fence
speakers
platform
petitioner
donald
saucier
military
police
officer
duty
day
warned
superiors
possibility
demonstrations
respondent
identified
potential
protestor
petitioner
sergeant
steven
parker
also
military
police
officer
party
suit
recognized
respondent
moved
intercept
walked
toward
fence
reached
barrier
began
placing
banner
side
officers
grabbed
respondent
behind
took
banner
rushed
area
officer
one
respondent
arms
feet
barely
touching
ground
app
respondent
wearing
visible
leg
brace
although
petitioner
later
testified
remember
noticing
time
saucier
parker
took
respondent
nearby
military
van
respondent
claims
shoved
thrown
inside
reason
shove
remains
unclear
seems
agreed
respondent
placed
feet
somewhere
outside
van
perhaps
bumper
dispute
whether
resist
result
shove
respondent
claims
fell
floor
van
caught
time
avoid
injury
officers
drove
respondent
military
police
station
held
brief
time
released
though
details
clear
appears
least
one
protestor
also
placed
van
detained
brief
time
respondent
brought
action
district
northern
district
california
petitioner
officials
pursuant
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
alleging
inter
alia
defendants
violated
respondent
fourth
amendment
rights
using
excessive
force
arrest
district
granted
defendants
motions
summary
judgment
grounds
qualified
immunity
claims
excessive
force
claim
saucier
held
dispute
material
fact
existed
concerning
whether
excessive
force
used
remove
respondent
crowd
place
van
app
pet
cert
district
held
law
governing
excessive
force
claims
clearly
established
time
arrest
fourth
amendment
context
qualified
immunity
inquiry
inquiry
made
merits
result
ruled
petitioner
entitled
summary
judgment
appeals
ninth
circuit
petitioner
filed
interlocutory
appeal
denial
qualified
immunity
appeals
affirmed
noting
outset
analysis
qualified
immunity
questions
first
appeals
considers
whether
law
governing
official
conduct
clearly
established
ends
matter
official
entitled
immunity
however
law
clearly
established
conduct
occurred
appeals
second
step
determine
reasonable
officer
believed
light
clearly
established
law
conduct
lawful
ibid
first
step
analysis
observed
graham
connor
sets
forth
objective
reasonableness
test
evaluating
excessive
force
claims
principle
appeals
concluded
clearly
established
qualified
immunity
purposes
concluded
second
step
qualified
immunity
inquiry
merits
fourth
amendment
excessive
force
claim
identical
since
concern
objective
reasonableness
officer
conduct
light
circumstances
officer
faced
scene
reasoning
summary
judgment
based
qualified
immunity
held
inappropriate
saucier
represented
government
sought
review
arguing
appeals
erred
view
qualified
immunity
inquiry
constitutional
inquiry
becomes
superfluous
duplicative
excessive
force
alleged
granted
certiorari
ii
appeals
ruled
first
right
clearly
established
second
reasonableness
inquiry
excessive
force
meant
need
consider
aspects
qualified
immunity
leaving
whole
matter
jury
approach
reconciled
anderson
creighton
however
error
two
respects
shall
explain
first
inquiry
must
whether
constitutional
right
violated
facts
alleged
second
assuming
violation
established
question
whether
right
clearly
established
must
considered
specific
level
recognized
appeals
suit
officer
alleged
violation
constitutional
right
requisites
qualified
immunity
defense
must
considered
proper
sequence
defendant
seeks
qualified
immunity
ruling
issue
made
early
proceedings
costs
expenses
trial
avoided
defense
dispositive
qualified
immunity
entitlement
stand
trial
face
burdens
litigation
mitchell
forsyth
privilege
immunity
suit
rather
mere
defense
liability
like
absolute
immunity
effectively
lost
case
erroneously
permitted
go
trial
ibid
result
repeatedly
stressed
importance
resolving
immunity
questions
earliest
possible
stage
litigation
hunter
bryant
per
curiam
required
rule
upon
qualified
immunity
issue
must
consider
threshold
question
taken
light
favorable
party
asserting
injury
facts
alleged
show
officer
conduct
violated
constitutional
right
must
initial
inquiry
siegert
gilley
course
determining
whether
constitutional
right
violated
premises
alleged
might
find
necessary
set
forth
principles
become
basis
holding
right
clearly
established
process
law
elaboration
case
case
one
reason
insisting
upon
turning
existence
nonexistence
constitutional
right
first
inquiry
law
might
deprived
explanation
simply
skip
ahead
question
whether
law
clearly
established
officer
conduct
unlawful
circumstances
case
constitutional
right
violated
allegations
established
necessity
inquiries
concerning
qualified
immunity
hand
violation
made
favorable
view
parties
submissions
next
sequential
step
ask
whether
right
clearly
established
inquiry
vital
note
must
undertaken
light
specific
context
case
broad
general
proposition
serves
advance
understanding
law
allow
officers
avoid
burden
trial
qualified
immunity
applicable
litigation
instance
doubt
graham
connor
supra
clearly
establishes
general
proposition
use
force
contrary
fourth
amendment
excessive
objective
standards
reasonableness
yet
enough
rather
emphasized
anderson
right
official
alleged
violated
must
clearly
established
particularized
hence
relevant
sense
contours
right
must
sufficiently
clear
reasonable
official
understand
violates
right
explained
anderson
right
allegedly
violated
must
defined
appropriate
level
specificity
determine
clearly
established
approach
appeals
adopted
deny
summary
judgment
time
material
issue
fact
remains
excessive
force
claim
undermine
goal
qualified
immunity
avoid
excessive
disruption
government
permit
resolution
many
insubstantial
claims
summary
judgment
harlow
fitzgerald
law
put
officer
notice
conduct
clearly
unlawful
summary
judgment
based
qualified
immunity
appropriate
see
malley
briggs
qualified
immunity
protects
plainly
incompetent
knowingly
violate
law
say
formulation
general
rule
beside
point
insist
courts
must
agreed
upon
precise
formulation
standard
assuming
instance
various
courts
agreed
certain
conduct
constitutional
violation
facts
distinguishable
fair
way
facts
presented
case
hand
officer
entitled
qualified
immunity
based
simply
argument
courts
agreed
one
verbal
formulation
controlling
standard
appeals
concluded
qualified
immunity
merely
duplicative
excessive
force
case
eliminating
need
second
step
constitutional
violation
found
based
allegations
anderson
warrantless
search
case
rejected
argument
distinction
reasonableness
standard
warrantless
searches
qualified
immunity
inquiry
acknowledged
surface
appeal
argument
fourth
amendment
guarantee
right
free
unreasonable
searches
seizures
inconsistent
conclude
officer
acted
unreasonably
constitutional
standard
nevertheless
entitled
immunity
reasonably
acted
unreasonably
superficial
similarity
however
overcome
either
history
applying
qualified
immunity
analysis
fourth
amendment
claims
officers
justifications
applying
doctrine
area
officers
perform
duties
considerable
uncertainty
whether
particular
searches
seizures
comport
fourth
amendment
respect
moreover
argument
made
anderson
exception
made
fourth
amendment
cases
observed
heavy
burden
argument
must
sustain
successful
since
doctrine
qualified
immunity
reflects
balance
struck
across
board
quoting
harlow
fitzgerald
supra
held
qualified
immunity
applied
fourth
amendment
context
claim
official
misconduct
faced
heavy
burden
distinguishing
anderson
carving
exception
typical
qualified
immunity
analysis
applied
fourth
amendment
contexts
primary
submission
respondent
defense
appeals
decision
decision
graham
connor
somehow
changes
matters
graham
respondent
view
sets
forth
excessive
force
analysis
indistinguishable
qualified
immunity
rendering
separate
immunity
inquiry
superfluous
inappropriate
respondent
asserts
like
qualified
immunity
analysis
applicable
contexts
excessive
force
test
already
affords
officers
latitude
mistaken
beliefs
amount
force
necessary
graham
addressed
excessive
force
area
concerns
expressed
anderson
brief
respondents
respondent
points
graham
address
interaction
excessive
force
claims
qualified
immunity
since
issue
raised
see
respondent
seeks
distinguish
anderson
theory
issue
probable
cause
implicates
evolving
legal
standards
resulting
legal
uncertainty
subject
raising
recurrent
questions
qualified
immunity
contrast
respondent
says
excessive
force
governed
standard
established
graham
standard
providing
ample
guidance
particular
situations
finally
respondent
adopts
suggestion
made
one
appeals
relevant
distinction
probable
cause
ex
post
inquiry
whereas
excessive
force
like
qualified
immunity
evaluated
ex
ante
perspective
see
finnegan
fountain
arguments
attempted
distinctions
bear
weight
respondent
seeks
place
upon
graham
change
qualified
immunity
framework
explained
anderson
inquiries
qualified
immunity
excessive
force
remain
distinct
even
graham
graham
held
claims
excessive
force
context
arrests
investigatory
stops
analyzed
fourth
amendment
objective
reasonableness
standard
substantive
due
process
principles
police
officers
often
forced
make
judgments
circumstances
tense
uncertain
rapidly
evolving
amount
force
necessary
particular
situation
reasonableness
officer
belief
appropriate
level
force
judged
perspective
set
test
cautioned
vision
hindsight
favor
deference
judgment
reasonable
officers
scene
graham
sets
forth
list
factors
relevant
merits
constitutional
excessive
force
claim
requir
ing
careful
attention
facts
circumstances
particular
case
including
severity
crime
issue
whether
suspect
poses
immediate
threat
safety
officers
others
whether
actively
resisting
arrest
attempting
evade
arrest
flight
officer
reasonably
mistakenly
believed
suspect
likely
fight
back
instance
officer
justified
using
force
fact
needed
qualified
immunity
inquiry
hand
dimension
concern
immunity
inquiry
acknowledge
reasonable
mistakes
made
legal
constraints
particular
police
conduct
sometimes
difficult
officer
determine
relevant
legal
doctrine
excessive
force
apply
factual
situation
officer
confronts
officer
might
correctly
perceive
relevant
facts
mistaken
understanding
whether
particular
amount
force
legal
circumstances
officer
mistake
law
requires
reasonable
however
officer
entitled
immunity
defense
graham
always
give
clear
answer
whether
particular
application
force
deemed
excessive
courts
nature
test
must
accommodate
limitless
factual
circumstances
reality
serves
refute
respondent
claimed
distinction
excessive
force
fourth
amendment
contexts
spheres
law
must
elaborated
case
case
qualified
immunity
operates
case
others
protect
officers
sometimes
hazy
border
excessive
acceptable
force
priester
riviera
beach
ensure
subjected
suit
officers
notice
conduct
unlawful
graham
anderson
refute
excessive
cause
distinction
much
respondent
position
seems
depend
deference
owed
officers
facing
suits
alleged
excessive
force
different
qualitative
respect
probable
cause
inquiry
anderson
officers
reasonable
mistaken
beliefs
facts
establishing
existence
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
example
situations
courts
hold
violated
constitution
yet
even
hold
officer
violated
fourth
amendment
conducting
unreasonable
warrantless
search
anderson
still
operates
grant
officers
immunity
reasonable
mistakes
legality
actions
analysis
applicable
excessive
force
cases
addition
deference
officers
receive
underlying
constitutional
claim
qualified
immunity
apply
event
mistaken
belief
reasonable
temporal
perspective
inquiry
whether
labeled
ex
ante
ex
post
offers
meaningful
distinction
excessive
force
fourth
amendment
suits
graham
recognized
much
reviewing
several
probable
cause
search
warrant
cases
stating
ith
respect
claim
excessive
force
standard
reasonableness
moment
applies
probable
cause
arrest
hill
california
search
warrant
requirements
maryland
garrison
see
also
hunter
bryant
excessive
force
claims
like
fourth
amendment
issues
evaluated
objective
reasonableness
based
upon
information
officers
conduct
occurred
iii
case
presented
appeals
assumption
respondent
seizure
brief
detention
violate
clearly
established
first
amendment
privileges
violate
fourth
amendment
right
free
arrest
without
probable
cause
distinct
force
used
detain
sole
question
whether
force
used
violated
clearly
established
fourth
amendment
protection
petitioner
entitled
immunity
instruction
district
courts
courts
appeal
concentrate
outset
definition
constitutional
right
determine
whether
facts
alleged
constitutional
violation
found
important
said
procedure
permits
courts
appropriate
cases
elaborate
constitutional
right
greater
degrees
specificity
granted
certiorari
determine
whether
qualified
immunity
appropriate
however
limits
imposed
upon
us
questions
granted
review
assume
constitutional
violation
occurred
facts
alleged
based
simply
general
rule
prohibiting
excessive
force
proceed
question
whether
general
prohibition
excessive
force
source
clearly
established
law
contravened
circumstances
officer
faced
contravention
standard
though
doubtful
force
used
excessive
need
rest
conclusion
determination
question
officer
reasonably
understood
powers
responsibilities
acted
clearly
established
standards
respondent
excessive
force
claim
part
depends
upon
gratuitously
violent
shove
allegedly
received
placed
van
although
respondent
notes
well
alleged
violation
resulted
totality
circumstances
including
way
removed
speaking
area
see
brief
respondents
circumstances
however
disclose
substantial
grounds
officer
concluded
legitimate
justification
law
acting
graham
noted
ur
fourth
amendment
jurisprudence
long
recognized
right
make
arrest
investigatory
stop
necessarily
carries
right
use
degree
physical
coercion
threat
thereof
effect
reasonable
officer
petitioner
position
believed
hurrying
respondent
away
scene
vice
president
speaking
respondent
approached
fence
designed
separate
public
speakers
within
bounds
appropriate
police
responses
petitioner
know
full
extent
threat
respondent
posed
many
persons
might
concert
respondent
posed
threat
security
vice
president
potential
protestors
crowd
least
one
individual
arrested
placed
van
respondent
carrying
detention
assumed
officers
right
petitioner
required
recognize
necessity
protect
vice
president
securing
respondent
restoring
order
scene
said
clearly
established
rule
prohibit
using
force
petitioner
place
respondent
van
accomplish
objectives
shove
respondent
received
placed
van
circumstances
show
degree
urgency
approved
observation
ot
every
push
shove
even
may
later
seem
unnecessary
peace
judge
chambers
violates
fourth
amendment
ibid
citations
omitted
pushes
shoves
like
police
conduct
must
judged
fourth
amendment
standard
reasonableness
circumstances
presented
officer
included
duty
protect
safety
security
vice
president
persons
unknown
number
neither
respondent
appeals
identified
case
demonstrating
clearly
established
rule
prohibiting
officer
acting
aware
rule
conclusion
confirmed
uncontested
fact
force
excessive
respondent
suffered
hurt
injury
premises
petitioner
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
dismissed
early
stage
proceedings
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
donald
saucier
petitioner
elliot
katz
defense
animals
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
ginsburg
justice
stevens
justice
breyer
join
concurring
judgment
graham
connor
announced
described
objective
reasonableness
standard
govern
claims
law
enforcement
officers
violation
fourth
amendment
used
excessive
force
course
arrest
measuring
material
facts
case
subject
genuine
dispute
graham
standard
conclude
officer
saucier
motion
summary
judgment
granted
therefore
concur
judgment
however
travel
complex
route
lays
lower
courts
application
graham
objective
reasonableness
standard
necessary
currently
governing
precedent
view
sufficient
resolve
cases
genre
today
tacks
graham
inquiry
second
overlapping
objective
reasonableness
inquiry
purportedly
demanded
qualified
immunity
doctrine
test
today
decision
imposes
holds
large
potential
confuse
endeavors
bring
abstract
instructions
earth
suspect
bear
lower
courts
already
observed
paradigmatically
determination
police
misconduct
excessive
force
cases
availability
qualified
immunity
hinge
question
taking
account
particular
circumstances
confronting
defendant
officer
reasonable
officer
identically
situated
believed
force
employed
lawful
see
roy
inhabitants
city
lewiston
rowland
perry
nothing
nothing
else
need
answered
case
claims
law
enforcement
officers
used
excessive
force
course
arrest
graham
made
explicit
judged
fourth
amendment
reasonableness
standard
rather
substantive
due
process
approach
underlying
intent
motive
relevant
inquiry
rather
question
whether
officers
actions
objectively
reasonable
light
facts
circumstances
confronting
proper
perspective
judging
excessive
force
claim
graham
explained
reasonable
officer
scene
moment
force
employed
every
push
shove
cautioned
even
may
later
seem
unnecessary
peace
judge
chambers
violates
fourth
amendment
ibid
citation
omitted
calculus
reasonableness
must
allow
reality
police
officers
often
forced
make
judgments
force
particular
situation
warrants
circumstances
tense
uncertain
rapidly
evolving
graham
instructions
question
case
whether
officer
saucier
light
facts
circumstances
confronting
reasonably
believed
acted
lawfully
mine
run
sive
force
cases
inquiry
complex
warranted
inspecting
case
graham
lens
without
doubling
objectively
reasonable
inquiry
agree
katz
submissions
slim
put
officer
saucier
burden
trial
points
genuinely
doubt
reasonable
officer
saucier
position
believed
hurrying
katz
away
scene
within
bounds
appropriate
police
responses
ante
katz
excessive
force
claim
thus
depended
gratuitously
violent
shove
allegedly
received
ante
see
brief
respondents
conceding
gratuitous
violent
shove
essential
katz
excessive
force
claim
yet
katz
failed
proffer
proof
pretrial
discovery
saucier
distinguished
fellow
officer
hand
allegedly
violent
saucier
deposition
denied
participating
shove
see
app
katz
deposition
said
without
elaborating
parker
saucier
pretty
much
threw
shoved
critically
point
katz
say
specifically
saucier
parker
pushed
shoved
katz
reluctance
directly
charge
saucier
pushing
shoving
understandable
view
television
news
videotape
episode
katz
presented
exhibit
complaint
see
app
pet
cert
videotape
shows
shove
described
katz
gratuitously
violent
came
officer
right
side
police
van
officer
positioned
left
side
undisputed
officer
right
parker
officer
left
saucier
see
pet
cert
brief
petitioner
mindful
graham
cautionary
observation
ot
every
push
shove
even
may
later
seem
unnecessary
peace
judge
chambers
violates
fourth
amendment
citation
omitted
view
katz
failure
deny
shove
alleged
establish
excessive
force
came
parker
alone
saucier
persuaded
katz
tendered
triable
excessive
force
claim
ii
opinion
graham
inadequate
control
adjudication
excessive
force
cases
graham
must
overlaid
maintains
sequential
qualified
immunity
inquiry
ante
instructs
lower
courts
first
undertake
appears
unadorned
graham
inquiry
consider
initially
whether
parties
submissions
viewed
favorably
plaintiff
show
officer
conduct
violated
fourth
amendment
ante
plaintiff
prevails
threshold
question
ante
trial
proceed
dispositive
qualified
immunity
inquiry
asking
whether
clear
reasonable
officer
conduct
unlawful
situation
confronted
ante
instant
case
however
finds
procedural
impediments
stop
considering
first
whether
constitutional
right
violated
facts
alleged
ante
therefore
assume
constitutional
violation
occurred
ante
supposes
trier
found
officer
saucier
used
force
excessive
graham
definition
even
reasons
qualified
immunity
shield
saucier
concluded
legitimate
justification
law
acting
ante
skipping
ahead
basic
graham
constitutional
violation
inquiry
admonished
lower
courts
undertake
outset
failed
home
duplication
inherent
scheme
lower
courts
dealing
excessive
force
cases
ground
recognized
however
decisions
invoke
objectively
reasonable
standard
describing
constitutional
test
liability
citing
graham
roy
see
street
parham
describing
excessive
force
case
one
determination
liability
availability
qualified
immunity
depend
findings
words
officer
uses
force
objectively
reasonable
light
facts
circumstances
confronting
graham
simultaneously
meets
standard
qualified
immunity
see
ante
standard
set
graham
decision
merits
favor
conversely
officer
whose
conduct
objectively
unreasonable
graham
find
shelter
sequential
qualified
immunity
test
double
counting
objective
reasonableness
appears
suggest
ante
demanded
anderson
twice
restated
qualified
immunity
shields
conduct
officialdom
across
board
brennan
concurring
see
also
anderson
unwilling
complicate
qualified
immunity
analysis
making
scope
extent
immunity
turn
precise
nature
various
officials
duties
precise
character
particular
rights
alleged
violated
see
however
excessive
force
cases
meet
anderson
test
anderson
presented
question
whether
particular
search
conducted
without
warrant
supported
probable
cause
exigent
circumstances
answer
question
often
far
law
area
constantly
evolving
correspondingly
variously
interpreted
aptly
observed
second
circuit
even
learned
experienced
jurists
difficulty
defining
rules
govern
determination
probable
cause
tries
find
way
thicket
police
officer
must
held
act
peril
bivens
six
unknown
named
agents
federal
bureau
narcotics
remand
light
anderson
reasoned
law
enforcement
officers
whose
judgments
making
difficult
determinations
whether
particular
searches
seizures
comport
fourth
amendment
objectively
legally
reasonable
held
personally
liable
damages
officials
making
analogous
determinations
areas
law
emphasis
added
foregoing
discussion
indicates
however
excessive
force
typically
analogous
determination
constitutional
issue
whether
officer
use
force
reasonable
given
circumstances
routinely
answered
simply
following
graham
directions
inquiring
graham
whether
officer
use
force
within
range
reasonable
options
decisionmaker
also
necessarily
answering
question
whether
reasonable
officer
believed
use
force
lawful
anderson
see
street
difficulty
deciding
issues
conduct
officer
may
objectively
reasonable
even
cause
exist
excessive
force
cases
factfinder
determined
force
used
unnecessary
circumstances
question
objective
reasonableness
also
foreclosed
fears
dispensing
duplicative
qualified
immunity
inquiry
mean
leaving
whole
matter
jury
ante
experience
teaches
otherwise
lower
courts
armed
graham
directions
shied
away
granting
summary
judgment
defendant
officials
fourth
amendment
excessive
force
cases
challenged
conduct
objectively
reasonable
based
relevant
undisputed
facts
see
wilson
spain
address
ing
one
fell
swoop
defendant
qualified
immunity
merits
plaintiff
fourth
amendment
excessive
force
claim
concluding
officer
conduct
objectively
reasonable
circumstances
summary
judgment
officer
proper
roy
single
objective
reasonableness
test
district
properly
granted
summary
judgment
defendant
wardlaw
pickett
cadc
indeed
case
earlier
explained
see
supra
fits
summary
judgment
bill
course
excessive
force
claim
turns
two
conflicting
stories
best
captures
happened
street
graham
permit
summary
judgment
favor
defendant
official
plaintiff
proffers
evidence
official
subdued
chokehold
even
though
complied
times
orders
official
proffers
evidence
used
stern
words
trial
must
case
procedure
altogether
inutile
reasons
stated
concur
judgment
inquiry
ordered
determined
officer
violated
fourth
amendment
using
objectively
unreasonable
force
term
explained
graham
connor
simply
work
qualified
immunity
inquiry
donald
saucier
petitioner
elliot
katz
defense
animals
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
souter
concurring
part
dissenting
part
join
parts
ii
opinion
remand
case
application
qualified
immunity
standard
footnotes
though
named
defendant
parker
never
served
complaint
therefore
become
party
litigation
see
brief
petitioner
see
fed
rule
civ
proc
motion
summary
judgment
made
supported
provided
rule
adverse
party
may
rest
upon
mere
allegations
denials
adverse
party
pleading
adverse
party
response
must
set
forth
specific
facts
showing
genuine
issue
observes
dispute
whether
katz
resisting
arrest
time
placed
van
ante
dispute
irrelevant
however
view
absence
indication
saucier
employed
excessive
force
removing
katz
site
celebration
placing
van
see
rowland
perry
isputed
versions
facts
alone
enough
warrant
denial
summary
judgment
observation
neither
respondent
appeals
ha
identified
case
demonstrating
clearly
established
rule
prohibiting
officer
acting
ante
must
read
light
previous
caution
action
question
need
previously
held
unlawful
plaintiff
defeat
qualified
immunity
anderson
creighton
wilson
layne
prototypical
case
accorded
qualified
immunity
police
permitted
media
accompany
search
house
constitutionality
practice
unsettled
time
wilson
remained
spoke
upholding
summary
judgment
police
officer
shot
armed
intoxicated
belligerently
behaving
arrestee
first
circuit
roy
elaborated
intends
surround
police
make
choices
dangerous
situations
fairly
wide
zone
protection
close
cases
decisions
circuit
circuits
consistent
view
close
cases
jury
automatically
get
life
death
decisions
even
though
plaintiff
expert
plausible
claim
situation
better
handled
differently
omitted