stating that arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity if “at the moment' the arrest was made ... the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing” that the arrestee had violated the law
How later courts described this case
- stating that arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity if “at the moment' the arrest was made ... the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing” that the arrestee had violated the law
- stating that the question of whether a reasonable officer could have believed that he had probable cause to arrest was question for the court, not the trier of fact, on the officers’ summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds
- stating that the question of whether a reasonable officer could have believed that he had probable cause to arrest was a question for the court, not the trier of fact, on defendants’ summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds
- holding that police officers were entitled to qualified immunity for an allegedly wrongful arrest because a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff for making a threat on the President
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Scalia,
concurring in the judgment.
In my view the Ninth Circuit’s opinion purported to apply the standard for summary judgment that today’s opinion demands. Its error was in finding, on the facts before it, that the standard was not met. Since I think it worthwhile to establish that this Court will not let such a mistake stand with respect to those who guard the life of the President, I concur in the summary reversal.