CA7: In the private search doctrine and QI, it’s not clearly established that the actors knowing each other isn’t enough

“But for purposes of official immunity, the question is whether existing law clearly establishes that a private search is treated as a governmental search when the public and private actors are friends and potential future coworkers.” It does not. There has to be more. Comsys, Inc. v. Pacetti, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16672 (7th Cir. June 20, 2018):

But for purposes of official immunity, the question is whether existing law clearly establishes that a private search is treated as a governmental search when the public and private actors are friends and potential future coworkers.

Plaintiffs do not cite any decision clearly establishing such a rule; we could not find one on our own. To the contrary, established law sets up a multifactor balancing approach that asks just how entangled the public and private actions were. See, e.g., United States v. Crowley, 285 F.3d 553, 558 (7th Cir. 2002). As we’ve already observed, a claim that relies on multifactor balancing often does not identify a clearly established rule. The district court discussed several of the applicable factors when explaining why the record is not sufficiently developed to decide whether Kerkman was acting as Pacetti’s tool. That list of factors and uncertainties is why qualified immunity applies.