qualified immunity."

Qualified Immunity And Claims Of Excessive Force Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

immunity because she did not violate clearly established federal law does not protect the municipality from liability....

Where it is alleged that an official has violated a statute, qualified immunity may be overcome "if the officials have violated 'clearly established' law, unless the officials can prove that they non-negligently were not aware of the

In claims of excessive force brought against a police officer qualified immunity will be sustained if "a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the facts of

on the qualified immunity defense.

Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Ibid, (footnote deleted).

Haley, 687 P.2d 305 at 316 (Alaska 1984), is entitled to qualified immunity unless his action violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

We conclude that the superintendents were entitled to qualified immunity because the prisoner's right to a religious exception from the mail policy was not "clearly established" under existing law.

Fitzgerald ," under which "qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Courts in some cases have concluded that prisoner's religious rights are "clearly established" such that prison officials accused of violating them are not entitled to qualified immunity. In Hayes v.

G.Sauser and Kincheloe’s Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Given our disposition of Mathis’s right of access claim, we address Sauser and Kinche-loe’s assertion that they are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages.

Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known at the

In determining whether qualified immunity exists, the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the facts of the case.

With respect to Crawford’s constitutional claims, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, a reasonable officer could

have believed the arrest was lawful. 12 “The law is ‘clearly established’ if the contours of the right are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that his actions violate that right.” 13 The United

to qualified immunity so long as they did not violate "clearly established” law); see also Samaniego, 2 P.3d at 84 (applying the federal test for official immunity to a claim for excessive force). 13 .

Under federal case law, 5 a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a search and seizure if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, a

This rule was “clearly established law” at the time Brown searched Van Sandt’s trailer.

Therefore, Brown is entitled to qualified immunity only if a reasonable officer could have believed that the entry and search of Van Sandt’s trailer was supported by probable cause and that exigent circumstances prevented obtaining

Fitzgerald. 17 Under this standard, qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

established." 27 In short, because Maness cannot show pursuant to his theory of liability that the troopers violated any of his clearly established rights, the troopers are protected by qualified immunity from Maness's excessive

In sum, the troopers did not violate any clearly established right of Maness's when they attempted to serve the involuntary commitment order.

Most executive officers, however, have qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity under federal law protects officials except where it is “clearly established” as of the time of the acts complained of that the acts violated the plaintiffs rights.

Thoma Has Not Asserted a Valid Federal Claim One of the purposes of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from the expense of litigation. A.C.L.U. of Maryland v. Wicomico County, 999 F.2d 780 (4th Cir.1993).

We choose to follow federal precedent for determining whether qualified immunity should be conferred for executive acts alleged to contravene a statutory or *72 constitutional mandate.

immunity if their conduct in awarding the contract did not violate clearly established law.

In light of these facts, we cannot *74 say that the competitive bidding procedures then constituted clearly established law.

The prisoners appeal, arguing that they have a constitutionally protected interest in their jobs; that this interest was clearly established and therefore precludes a qualified immunity defense; that the superior court made various

immunity because any relevant liberty interest the prisoners might have claimed was not clearly established. 18 About three weeks after the federal district court's decision, Smith and Anagick moved for summary judgment in their

Under federal law, "qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ....' " Pearson v.

Under federal law, qualified immunity shields "government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

11 Second, "if so, was that right clearly established?"

Unlike the test for qualified immunity, the test for a facially valid $ 1983 claim does not require the court to consider whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established or whether a reasonable officer would have

Whether public officials may assert a qualified immunity defense in a section 1983 action depends on whether they should have known that their conduct violated a person’s statutory or constitutional rights: [Officials “are shielded

from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Davis v.

Using the Saucier analysis, the superior court held that Jones and the City of Ambler were protected by qualified immunity because “[t]here was no clearly established law ... that would have given a reasonable officer notice that

Creighton. 19 Under the federal standard, we emphasized in Samaniego, “the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the

facts of the case.” 20 Here is what Saucier would later identify as the “reasonable, but mistaken, beliefs” aspect of the qualified immunity inquiry. 21 That is, qualified immunity can be conferred when an officer could

Discretionary functions performed by government officials may not be entitled to immunity if the officials violate “clearly established” law. Integrated Resources Equity Corp. v. Fairbanks N.

Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 73 (Alaska 1987) (holding that where officials exercised discretion within the scope of their authority, they were entitled to qualified immunity so long as they did not violate “clearly established” law).

Similarly, the United States Supreme Court stated: Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.

Prentzel further argues that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity under the standards governing § 1988 claims.

Under federal law governing constitutional claims brought under § 1988, "a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time,

To defeat the troopers' claim of qualified immunity, Prentzel must instead show that the troopers' warrantless arrest amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment under clearly established federal law governing that amendment's

“[O]fficials being sued in their private capacity for discretionary acts performed as part of their official duties are protected by at least qualified immunity.”15 To overcome qualified immunity, not only must a constitutional violation

be found, but also the plaintiff must show that “the right allegedly violated was ‘clearly established,’ which occurs where the ‘contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what

light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is such that reasonable men could not differ in their judgment.' " 48 We agree with the superior court's analysis because it is consistent with principles underlying the application of qualified

immunity.

Federal qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

We analyze qualified immunity in the context of alleged statutory violations under Breck v. Ulmer. 13 There we adopted the federal Harlow v.

Fitzgerald 14 test for official immunity. 15 Under this standard, "the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the facts

of the case. 16 "" In other words, "[wlhether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the 'objective reasonableness of his conduct."" 17 Because objective reasonableness is required, officers