Most pertinent to the present appeal, defendants invoked principles of qualified immunity and argued that RDI's constitutional and NJCRA claims must be dismissed because defendants violated no "clearly established" laws in their

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: "(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established' at

Therefore, "unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."

established” right when he entered Brown’s home to secure it, and qualified immunity applies. 1.

Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity as to Brown’s NJCRA claim because regardless of whether his conduct amounts to a violation of a constitutional right, that right was not clearly established at the time that he acted

established at the time of his conduct, we conclude that Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity.

If the right at issue is not clearly established, then the officer alleged to have violated that right will be entitled to qualified immunity.

Many Section 1983 cases rise or fall on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Ct. at 1776 (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, two inquiries are pertinent: (1) were plaintiff's constitutional rights violated when the officers arrested him; and (2) "was the constitutional right being violated clearly established

In Brown, the Court provided the following overview of qualified immunity.

Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right asserted by plaintiff was not clearly established.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages related to their discretionary actions, insofar as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

A defendant invoking qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal prior to suit "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law . . . ." Mitchell v.

The facts as alleged do not support a finding that defendants violated plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights. They do not support an abrogation of qualified immunity.

"[T]he clearly established law must be 'particularized' to the facts of the case.

In order to rebut the assertion of qualified immunity, plaintiff was required to show Ruane violated a "constitutional 'right [that] was clearly established' at the time that [Ruane] acted." Brown, 230 N.J. at 98 .

The Third Circuit also rejected the officer's claim as to the second prong of the qualified immunity doctrine, that is, that he did not violate some clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 917 .

This case concerns the Third Circuit's grant of qualified immunity to defendants.

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Torrez and Martinez, who arrived on the scene late and began shooting, were also entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to present "caselaw demonstrating that [they] . . . violated a clearly established right by

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Tax Collector was entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that she did not violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory rights

Plaintiffs claim that the Tax Collector is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated their clearly established constitutional and statutory right to redeem the tax sale certificate and retain their home before entry

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects government officials from 24 civil liability for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Finally, qualified immunity is a doctrine which shields government officials from civil liability when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

A-1774-24 17 The doctrine of qualified immunity "shield[s] 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

The motion judge did not address the qualified immunity issue.

On the merits, the judge determined DeLorenzo was entitled to qualified immunity because he had not violated any of Schweizer's "clearly established" rights and had acted with probable cause.

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers and other government officials "'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

that the official violated the plaintiff's constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) whether the right allegedly violated was 'clearly established' at the time of the officer's actions."

POINT V BECAUSE [PLAINTIFF]'S LIBERTY RIGHT IN CONTINUING AS AN RCRP RECIPIENT WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF HER RETURN TO STATE PRISON, SESSOMES WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR DEPRIVING HER OF THIS RIGHT

"The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

We agree with the trial court's determination Sessomes was entitled to qualified immunity for her decision to transfer plaintiff from the RCRP to Edna Mahan because nothing in that decision-making process violated a clearly established

"The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

"Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established

Ct. 1765, 1776 (2015) ("Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if 'clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.").

It agreed that defendant was "immune from suit because [of] the Tort Claims Act [TCA] and due to qualified immunity." Ibid.

The trial court also found plaintiff was "protected by qualified immunity because he is not a government official."

The court found defendant's "alleged conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." 4 Ibid.

Plaintiff's failure to show he engaged in constitutionally protected conduct substantially erodes his claim that Devanney was not shielded from liability by qualified immunity.

The qualified immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

The other prong asks "whether the right was 'clearly established' at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct."

We turn to plaintiff's argument that the judge also erred in finding the State defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

In situations where absolute immunity may not apply, a governmental official may be entitled to qualified immunity "for discretionary acts that do 'not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

, and (2) whether the right allegedly violated was 'clearly established' at the time of the [defendant]'s actions."

The judge further addressed whether Mayor Dillon and Forbes were entitled to qualified immunity.

To determine if qualified immunity applies, we consider whether: (1) plaintiff's constitutional rights violated; and (2) "was the constitutional right being violated clearly established at the time so that any reasonable officer

In Brown, the Court explained qualified immunity as follows: The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities

The trial court concluded that both were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity because it found the communication to the press did not violate clearly established rights.

"The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities, 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

a constitutional right'; and (2) that constitutional 'right was clearly established' at the time that defendant acted."

doctrine is intended to balance the need to hold public officials accountable and avoid excessive disruption of government arising from insubstantial claims, "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly

established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."

Because defendants acted on behalf of the State, and the record does not support a violation of clearly established law, Judge Hurd correctly determined they were entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's freedom of speech

In deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, New Jersey courts apply the two-prong test set forth in Saucier, 533 U.S. at 199; accord Morillo, 222 N.J. at 115 .

A court must determine: (1) whether the A-2113-18T2 5 officer's actions violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time of incident; and (2) whether reasonable officers in the same situation

If the right was not clearly established at the time, the inquiry ends there, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 199.

Dougherty Also Has Qualified Immunity "The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities, 'insofar

as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'"

right"; and (2) that constitutional "right was clearly established" at the time that defendant acted.