Pearson v. Callahan, 07-751
01/21/09, U.S.
Holding: The rigid two-step process for analyzing whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, established in Saucier v. Katz, 531 U.S. 991 (2001) is no longer mandatory in every case. Under Saucier, a judge first had to decide whether a government official’s action violated the Constitution and only if there was a violation, then whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at time of the violation. If the court answered either question in the negative, then qualified immunity shielded the defendant from liability.
In this case, police officers entered respondent’s home without a warrant and conducted a search that respondents allege was a violation of Fourth Amendment consent-once-removed doctrine (see Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)) . Court unanimously held that the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement and that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on ground that it was not clearly established at time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional. In rejecting Saucier’s rigid two-step test, Court emphasized that it was not preventing lower courts from following the Saucier procedure; rather, courts should have the discretion to decide whether that procedure is worthwhile in particular cases. Thus, federal courts now have discretion to address whether the unconstitutionality of the officials’ conduct was clearly established at the time without first determining whether the facts alleged by plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right. Held, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity reversed.
