CA5: When qualified immunity is the issue, whether the 4A was violated isn’t even the “ultimate question”

Police received a 911 call that plaintiff’s son was a schizophrenic threatening death or certain injury. They came to her house, and she denied that he was there, but pleaded for help for him because he refused to take his medication and was threatening all kinds of people. The law was not clearly established at the time of the entry, and qualified immunity protects the officers. Velasquez v. Audirsch, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12616 (5th Cir. July 3, 2014):

The district court’s analysis was arguably correct in evaluating the merits of the Velasquezes’ underlying constitutional claim; however, this analysis misconstrues qualified immunity doctrine. As discussed above, the ultimate question is not whether the Officers’ actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; the question is whether the law at the time of the Officers’ entry into the Velasquezes’ home clearly established that their actions were unreasonable. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S. Ct. 987 (2012) (per curiam) leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the law was not clearly established in the circumstances here.

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.