finding officers entitled to qualified immunity where the law was not clearly established and officers could have believed their conduct justified by legitimate law enforcement interests
How later courts described this case
- finding officers entitled to qualified immunity where the law was not clearly established and officers could have believed their conduct justified by legitimate law enforcement interests
- explaining that controlling authority derives from decisions by the Supreme Court, this Court, or “the highest court of the state”
- noting that entry into a home without a warrant is per se unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement exists
- A law is "clearly established" when "the law has been authoritatively decided by the Supreme Court, the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state." (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result obtained by the majority.
I also concur in all of the majority opinion except the four sentences commencing with “and” on page 116, line 12, and ending with “warrant” on page 116, line 33. The conclusion there mentioned is not a question before us, and I would not express an advisory opinion upon it.