United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019-08-20
author: unavailable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no authored CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Evaluating the qualified immunity defense is thus a two-step process. The first is to determine whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated by conduct that, viewed from the officer's perspective and information at the time, is objectively unreasonable.
Cole v. Carson — 935 F.3d 444 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1983: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
Evaluating the qualified immunity defense is thus a two-step process. The first is to determine whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated by conduct that, viewed from the officer's perspective and information at the time, is objectively unreasonable.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0444-01; Unicode character offsets [0:255] (end exclusive); SHA-256 573ddb6e2744440a7e6222022cf21f9806077383c1923706cdb627b4adef74d4.Two-prong test (which courts may address in either order under Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)): (1) whether the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) whether the unlawfulness of the conduct was "clearly established" at the time so as to give fair warning (Hope v. Pelzer; Mullenix v. Luna).