The following excerpt is from Ford v. Lewis, Case No.: 16cv1126-LAB (BLM) (S.D. Cal. 2016):
Assessing qualified immunity is a two-step process. Id. at 201. First, a court must consider whether "[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, [] the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right." Id. at 201. Second, the allegedly-violated right must be clearly established such that "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Id. at 201-02. If an officer makes a reasonable mistake as to what the law requires - i.e. the right is not clearly established - the officer is entitled to immunity. Id. at 202-03. Courts may "exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.