functions such as the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution, the presentation of the State’s case at trial, and other conduct intimately associated with the judicial process, but that prosecutors have only the protection of qualified

immunity when functioning in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than in the role of an advocate.

Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish his or her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

In this case, the issue of whether or not Burkett is entitled to qualified immunity has not been finally determined in all aspects.

established right.

When a court is faced with a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether or not the alleged conduct of the defendant was violative of "clearly established" law.

The Court summarized the application of qualified immunity in this context: Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields agents Hunter and Jordan from suit for damages if “a reasonable officer could have believed [Bryant’s

arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.”

Sears, Roebuck & Co., *402 984 F.2d 972, 976 (8th Cir.1993): “What matters in a qualified immunity inquiry is whether a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful.” See also Habiger v.

Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish, his of her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

“While absolute immunity covers prosecutorial functions such as the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution . . . and other conduct intimately associated with the judicial process, prosecutors have only the protection of qualified

immunity when functioning in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than in the role of an advocate.”

Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish his or her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

“A constitutional right is ‘clearly established’ if the ‘contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful ... but it is to say that in the light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent

immunity because the underlying factual circumstances confronting them did not demonstrate that a reasonable person would have known that their conduct violated clearly established federal law.

. [¶18] Wagendorf and Nelson are protected by qualified immunity unless the Park “pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time

A constitutional right is “clearly established” if the “contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful . . .

Harlow, supra, 457 U.S. at 818-819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 [Footnotes omitted], A constitutional right is “clearly established” if the “contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful ... but it is to say that in the light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent