The relevant question is whether a reasonable official could have believed his action was lawful or constitutional in light of clearly established law. Anderson v.

Qualified immunity is a question of law and as such, we may review the decision de novo. Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.1989).

There is a presumption of qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. McLin v. Trimble, supra, at 1041 , citing Mitchell v.

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Phillips v.

Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990), our Supreme Court held that in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, a court should first address whether the undisputed facts show a legally cognizable claim for relief.

If the undisputed facts in the case fail to show the deprivation of any constitutional right as a matter of law then the defendants did not violate a clearly established right. McLin v. Trimble, at 1042.

Finally, Appellants maintain Ap-pellees are not entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Harlow v.

In general, the doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials who perform discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory