Believing Officer Sanchez violated clearly established law, we held that he was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Therefore Officer Sanchez is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no proof that he violated clearly established law, and he should not be made to stand trial on the § 1983 claims.

Further, because the facts do not show that Officer Sanchez violated clearly established law, he is entitled to qualified immunity as to the claims of breaking and entering, unlawful search, and violation of property rights.

immunity for the strip-to-undergarments search of Randy Ford because while that search violated his rights, those rights were not “clearly established” in 1992; (2) two Defendants deserved qualified immunity because their participation

{2} We hold: (1) the strip-to-undergarments search of Randy Ford violated his clearly established rights in 1992, and the school officials therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity for that search; (2) where the jury determined

{22} Qualified immunity requires an inquiry into the extent to which the right allegedly violated is clearly established in light of pre-existing law.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity arguing there was no clearly established right to familial integrity.

Rostro, 114 N.M. 607 , 845 P.2d 130 (1992), we review whether the district court erred in denying summary judgment on Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

The test for qualified immunity is two pronged and requires us to determine: (1) whether at the time of the alleged conduct there was a clearly established constitutional right that was violated, and (2) whether a reasonable person

The Court then held that a claim of qualified immunity, as described in Harlow v.

Applying this proposition to a request for qualified immunity, we examine whether the opposing party has presented evidence to support a violation of clearly established law, so as to require a trial on the merits.

Finding that plaintiff had this clearly established right, however, does not quite dispose of the qualified-immunity issue in this case, because in order to determine whether defendants unconstitutionally infringed her right to speak

Qualified immunity "shield[s] [government officials performing *1089 discretionary functions] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Qualified Immunity {24} As articulated above, a public official is entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of a discretionary function if the constitutional or statutory right alleged to have been violated was not "clearly

The requirement that the right be clearly established does not mean that "an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful."

10th Cir.2000) (collecting authority for the proposition that a deprivation of the procedural protections secured by the Uniform Extradition Act is a cognizable cause of action but deciding that the agents at issue were protected by qualified

immunity).

Based on this precedent, we can safely say that the protections secured to prisoners awaiting extradition are mandatory and clearly established rights.

10th Cir.2000) (collecting authority for the proposition that a deprivation of the procedural protections secured by the Uniform Extradition Act is a cognizable cause of action but deciding that the agents at issue were protected by qualified

immunity).

Based on this precedent, we can safely say that the protections secured to prisoners awaiting extradition are mandatory and clearly established rights.

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)), that statement is usually made in the context of an issue not present here — the determination of whether a defendant subject to qualified immunity under Harlow

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), knew or should have known that his conduct would violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional norm. E.g., Warren v.

We concluded in Carrillo that qualifiéd immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) constitutes immunity from suit because it is “ ‘an entitlement not to stand trial.or face the other burdens of litigation, conditioned on the resolution

of the Essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.’ ” Carrillo, 114 N.M. at 615 , 845 P.2d at 138 (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 )

Section 41-4A-3(C). 5 {14} Among its notable features, the CRA prohibits the use of qualified immunity 6 as a defense to a claim brought pursuant to that act. Section 41-4A-4.

Qualified 7 immunity is a defense available to state officials sued in a personal capacity under § 8 1983 and provides immunity from damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate 9 clearly established statutory or constitutional