NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

______________ N o. 09- 2256

______________ S HAWN S OUT HE RL AND

v. CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A; M ONT GOMER Y C OUNT Y; WHI T E M AR S H T OWNS HI P P OL I CE DE P AR T M E NT M ONT GOMER Y C OUNT Y; D E T E C T IV E C R A IG C . C U B B IN ID # 2 7 3 7 4 , 4 9 , W H IT E M A R S H T O W N S H IP

P OLI CE DE P ARTM ENT ; CUBBI N, S ERGE ANT COTT ER WHI T E M AR S H T OWNS HI P P OL I CE DE P AR T M E NT DET ECT I VE CRAI G C. CUBBI N a n d S GT. COTT ER, A pp el l ants .

______________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E RN D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C i v. A ct i on N o. 08- 5333) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn Ful l am

______________ A r gued June 10, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t6, 2010) N athan E. D enni ng [A r gued] K a re n C . D a ly E zra D . R o sen b erg Dec h e rtLLP C ir a C e n tr e , 2929 A r ch Str eet , 18 Fl oor th2

Phi l adelphi a, PA 19104

A t torneys f

orAppel lee C hr i s t opherP. B oy l e, Sr . [A r gued] M a r s h a l l , De n n e h e y , W a rn e r , Co l e ma n & G o g g i n , P . C. 620 Fr eedom B us i nes s C ent er Sui t e 300 K i ng of Prus s i a, PA 19406 A tto rn e y fo r Ap p e lla n ts

______________

OP I NI ON

______________ G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udge A p p ell an ts D etec ti v e C raig C u b b in an d S erg ea n t Jam es C o tt er (tog ethe r,

“ A p p e llan ts” ) a p p e a l th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t co n c e rn in g th e e x iste n c e o f p ro b a b le ca u se f o r th eir w arran tl ess a rrest of ap p ell ee S h aw n S o u therlan d . T h e D istri ct C o u rt e n ter e d su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f S o u th e rla n d o n h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c laim al l eging that A pp el l ants viol at ed h i s Fo urth A m end m ent r i gh t s, and den i ed A pp el l ants ’ mo t i o n f o rs u mm a ryj u d g me n ts e e k i n g q u a l i f i e d i mm u n i ty . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derand r emand. I . BA CKGROUND W e w ri te s o le ly f

o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rt ie s a n d re c o u n t o n ly th e e s s e n tia l f a c ts . O n O ct ober14, 2008, Sgt . C ott er , of the W hi t emar s h T ow ns hi p Pol i ce D epartm entSouther l and has averr ed i n hi s compl ai ntthathe di d notfal s el yi dent i fyhi m s el f.

A ppel l ant s al s o char ged Souther l and w i th di s or der l yconduct , i n vi ol at i on of 18 Pa. C on s. S t at . § 5 50 3, w hich st at es: 3 ( “W PD ”) , r ece i ved a phone cal l fr om D et ect i ve R i ck G ar ci a ( “D et . G ar ci a”) , of the B r onx H o m icid e T a sk F o rc e a t th e N e w Y o rk P o lice D e p a rtm e n t (“ N Y P D ” ). D e t. G a rc ia to ld Sgt . C ott erthathe w as l ooki ng forShaw n Souther l and r egar di ng a homi ci de in v e stig a tio n . D e t. G a rc ia h a d in f o rm a tio n th a t S o u th e rla n d w a s w o rk in g a s a g o lf c a d d ie a t th e P h ila d e lp h ia C ri c k e t C lu b , a n d re q u e s te d th e W P D ’s a s s is ta n c e in lo c a tin g h im . A p p e lla n ts a g re e d . A t th e tim e , th e re w a s n o w a rr a n t f o r S o u th e rl a n d ’s a rr e s t. A ppel l ant s arr i ved atthe C r i cketC l ub and appr oache d Souther l and as he w al ked off the gol f cour s e. A ppel l ant s s t at e thatw hen theyas ked Souther l and fori dent i fi cat i on, he r epl i ed thathe di d nothave a ny , and i dent i fi ed hi m s el f r epea t edl yas “K ei th D avi s . ” A ft erA ppel l ant s as ked Souther l and t o r emove w hatappea r ed t o be a w al l etfr om hi s r ear pocket , he conf

es s ed thathe w as notK ei th D avi s , butShaw n Souther l and. 1 S o u th e rla n d w a s ta k e n in to c u sto d ya t th e W P D h e a d q u a rte rs a n d c h a rg e d w ith f a lse id e n tific a tio n , in v io latio n o f P e n n sy lv a n ia la w . T h e f a lse id e n tific a tio n sta tu te pr ovi des that [a] pers on com m i t s an of fense if he furni shes l aw enfo rcem ent w i th fals e i nform at i on abouthi s i dent i tyaft erbei ng i nform ed bya l aw enfor cement offi cerw ho i s i n uni form orw ho has i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as a l aw enfor cementoffi certhatthe per s on i s the s ubj ectof an of fi ci al i nves t i gat i on o f a v i o l a t i o n o f

l a w. 18 Pa. C ons . St at . § 4914. D et . C ubbi n w i thdr ew thi s char ge s i x day s l at er , on O ct ober 2A p e rso n is g u iltyo f d iso rd e rlyc o n d u c t if, w ith th e in ten t to c a u se p u b lic i nconveni ence , annoy ance oral arm , orr eckl es s l ycr eat i ng a r i s k ther eof, he: (1) e n g ag es in fig h ti n g o r th rea tenin g , o r i n v iolen t or tu m u ltu o u s b eh av ior; ( 2) m akes unr eas onabl e noi s e; ( 3) us es obs cene l anguage , orm akes an obs cene ges tur e; or( 4) cr eat es a haz ar dous orphy s i cal l yoffe ns i ve co n d it ion b yan yac t w h ich s erv es n o legiti m ate p u rpo se o f th e a ctor. T hi s char ge w as dr opped, al ong w i th the fa l s e i dent i fi cat i on char ge, on O ct ober 20, 2008. 4 2 0 . S o u th e rl a n d s u b s e q u e n tly f ile d th is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n , a lle g in g , in tera lia , that A pp el l ants l acked probab l e cause fo r hi s arres t . A pp el l ants m ov ed to di sm i ss Souther l and’ s cl ai m s , pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , and S o u th e rla n d o p p o se d th e m o tio n a n d a lso m o v e d f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, pu rsu a n t to F ed era l R u le of

C ivil P roc ed u re 5 6 . C o n stru ing A p p ell an ts’ m o ti o n as o n e f o r sum m ary j udgm ent , s ee Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( d) , the D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed Souther l and’ s m ot i on and deni ed A ppel l ant s ’ m ot i on. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtconcl uded thatSouther l and’ s arr es tw as uncons t i tut i onal becaus e i tw as onl ya pr et extt o keep Souther l and i n cus t odyunt i l the N Y PD obt ai ned a pr oper l yi s s ued w arr antforhi s arr es t . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtal s o r ej ect ed A ppel l ant s ’ qual i fi ed i m m uni tydefe ns e, hol di ng thata r eas onabl e off i cercoul d not b e liev e th a t ar re stin g S o u th e rla n d o n p re tex tu a l ch a rg e s w a s p e rm itt e d u n d e r th e F o u rth A m endment . A ppel l ant s t i m el yappea l ed.

II. J URI S DI CTI ON & S TANDA RD O F REVI EW Th e Di s tr i c tCo u rte x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rS o u th e r l a n d ’ s § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m,5

p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . W e h a v e ap p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e revi ew the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent de no vo . A zur v. C hase B ank, U SA , N at ’ l A s s ’ n, 601 F. 3d 212, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . W e al s o r evi ew the deni al of s um m aryj udgm entde novo w hen the appe al “i s r ai s ed i n t andem w i th an appe al of an o rd e r g ra n tin g a c ro ss -m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t.” T ra n sp o rte s F e rre o s d e V e n e z u e la I I C A v. N K K C orp. , 239 F. 3d 555, 560 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( not i ng al s o thatcr os s - m ot i ons

“ a re n o m o re th a n a c la im b ye a c h s id e th a t it a lo n e is e n title d to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t” ). W e a f f irm a d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t if th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to anym at er i al fac tand the movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a matt erof l aw . M ont anez v. T hom ps on, 603 F. 3d 243, 248 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . T hi s r equi r es vi ew i ng the fa ct s i n the l i ght m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rtya n d d ra w in g a ll in f e re n c e s in th a t p a rty ’s f a v o r. Id . I I I . A N A L Y S IS A . F ourt h A m endm ent V i ol at i on T o pr evai l on a § 1983 cl ai m , Souther l and musts how thatA ppel l ant s , underthe col orof s t at e l aw , depr i ved hi m of a f eder al cons t i tut i onal ors t atut oryr i ght . M i l l erv. M itch e ll, 5 9 8 F .3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). S o u th e rla n d c o n ten d s th a t A p p e llan ts vi ol at ed the Fourth A m endment , w hi ch mandat es thatal l w arr ant l es s arr es t s be s upport ed by“pr obabl e caus e t o bel i eve thata cr i m i nal offe ns e has been ori s bei ng comm i tt ed. ” W ri g h t v . C ity o f

P h ila d e lp h ia , 4 0 9 F .3 d 5 9 5 , 6 0 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).A l though pr obabl e caus e nee d onl yexi s tas t o any o f f e n se th a t could have be en char ged underthe ci r cumst ance s , B arna v. C i tyof Perth A m boy , 42 F. 3d 809, 819 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , A ppel l ant s have nots ugges t ed thatpr obabl e caus e exi s t ed, atthatt i m e, for anyotheroffe ns e— noteven di s or der l yconduct , w i th w hi ch theyhad i ni t i al l ychar ged Souther l and, and then l at erdr opped. 6 Pr obabl e caus e exi s t s i f, atthe mom entthe arr es tw as m ade, “the fa ct s and c irc u m sta n c e s w ith in [ th e a rre stin g o f f ice rs’ ] k n o w led g e . . . w e re su f f icie n t to w a rra n t a prudentm an i n bel i evi ng that[the per s on t o be arr es t ed] had comm i tt ed orw as comm i tt i ng an off

ens e. ” Snel l v. C i tyof Y ork, 564 F. 3d 659, 671 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t at i on and i nternal quotat i on m arks om i tt ed). A l tho ug h ev i den ce est abli shi ng probab l e cause n e e d n o t b e a s s tro n g a s w o u ldb e n e e d e d to su p p o rt a c o n v ictio n , the re m u st b e a “ f a ir p ro b a b ility” th a t th e p e rs o n c o m m itte d th e re le v a n t c ri m e . W ri g h t, 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 6 0 2 . W hetheranypart i cul ars etof fa ct s s ugges t s thatpr obabl e caus e exi s t s “r equi r es an exami nat i on of the el ement s of the cr i m e ati s s ue. ” I d. A ppel l ant s r el yon Penns y l vani a’ s fal s e i dent i fi cat i on s t atut e as thei rbas i s for fi ndi ng pr obabl e caus e t o arr es tSouther l and. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtfai l ed t o eval uat e the 3 r ecor d i n the cont extof the el ement s of thi s offe ns e. I ns t ead, i tfocus ed on the “pr et extual ” natur e of the arr es tt o r es ol ve the pr obabl e caus e i nqui ry . Pr et ext , though, does notaff

ectthe cons t i tut i onal i tyof A ppel l ant s ’ conduct . See D evenpe ck v. A l for d, 5 4 3 U .S . 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 (2 0 0 4 ) (s tatin g th a t an o f f ice r’s su b

jec tiv e in ten t o r re a so n f o r a rre st is irrelev an t t o the p rob ab le ca u se a n aly sis) . E xpl or i ng the fa ct s as theyr el at e t o the el ement s of fa l s e i dent i fi cat i on, i ti s cl earT he part i es do notappea rt o di s put e the r emai ni ng el ementof fa l s e i dent i fi cat i on, that

is, th a t th e o f

f ice r sp e a k in g to S o u th e rla n d w a s “ in u n if o rm o r [ ] h a [ d ] id e n tifie d h im se lf as a l aw enfor cementoffi cer . ” 18 Pa. C ons . St at . § 4914. 7 thatthe r ecor d, w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o A ppel l ant s , r efl ect s that S o u th e r l a n d f

u rn i s h e d l a w e n f

o r c e m e n tw i th f

a l s e i n f o rm a t i o n a b o u th i s i d e n t i ty. P re su m a b ly , the D istric t C o u rt re c o g n ize d th is. (A p p . 0 0 0 0 4 (sta tin g th a t A p p e llan ts a lleg e S o u th e rla n d d idn o t in iti a llya d m it t o h is id e n titya lth o u g h S o u th e rla n d a lleg e s to h a v e im m e d ia te ly tru th f u lly id e n tif

ie d h im s e lf

).) Y e t, th is is n o t th e e n d o f th e in q u iry . T h ere is a crit ical elem en t t o the o ff en se o f f alse ide n ti fica ti o n that the D istri ct C o u rt negl ect ed ent i r el y : w hetherSouther l and fa l s el yi dent i fi ed hi m s el f “ after bei ng i nform ed .

. . that[he] i s the su b

jec t of an off

i ci al i nv est i gati on of a v i olat i on of law . ” 18 P a. C on s. 4 St at . § 4914 ( emphasi s added) . I n or dert o det erm i ne w hetherA ppel l ant s vi ol at ed S o u therlan d ’s F o u rth A m en d m en t r igh ts, the D istri ct C o u rtm u st asce rt ain w h ethe r th ere is a g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te ri a l f

a c t w ith re g a rd to th is e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e . T h e re c o rd c o n tain s f

o u r im p o rta n t so u rc e s o f in f o rm a tio n th a t sh e d lig h t o n th is i s s ue: the pol i ce r eport , the af fi davi tof pr obabl e caus e, D et . C ubbi n’ s aff i davi t , and Souther l and’ s amended compl ai nt . C i t i ng t o the pol i ce r eport , A ppel l ant s s t at e thatthey advi s ed Souther l and that“w e w er e det ect i ves fr om W hi t emar s h T ow ns hi p Pol i ce a nd that w e w e re re q u e ste d b yth e N Y P D to a ss ist th e m in a d e a th in v e stig a tio n [ a n d th a t] [ t]h is w a s th e re a so n w e w e re sp e a k in g w ith h im .” (A p p . 1 3 9 -4 0 (p o lice re p o rt).) T h e a f f id a v it of pr obabl e caus e has a s i m i l ari t er at i on of the r el evantfac t s . ( A pp. 186 ( “Sgt . C ott erA p p e llan ts c o n ten d th a t v iew in g th e f a c ts in “ lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t” re q u ire s u s to re a d p a ra g ra p h 1 3 o f D e t. C u b b in ’s a f

f id a v it— w h ich sta tes th e o f f ice rs to ld Souther l and that“he w as a per s on of i nt er es ti n a N ew Y ork hom i ci de”— as havi ng o c c u rre d b e f

o re p a ra g ra p h 1 2 , w h ich sta tes th a t “a f terre p e a ted lyc laim in g h e w a s ‘K e ith D av is, ’ S o u therlan d /D av is finallyad m itted to b eing S h aw n S o u therlan d . ” (A p p . 3 9 6 . ) A ppel l ant s pus h thi s r eadi ng of the af fi davi ti n s pi t e of the fa ctthatal l otherpar agr aphs d e s c r i b i n g th e e v e n t s o f th a td a y p r o c e e d c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y. A ppel l ant s s i m i l ar l ypos i tthatSouther l and’ s compl ai ntw ei ghs i n thei rfavor becaus e Souther l and s t at ed thathe w as t ol d he w as a per s on of i nt er es t . ( A pp. 12 ¶¶ 11- 12. ) Y et , as i n D et . C ubbi n’ s aff i davi t , i n Souther l and’ s compl ai nt , thi s s t at ement f o llo w s a f te r S o u th e rl a n d ’s s ta te m e n t th a t h e to ld th e tru th a b o u t h is id e n tity. (I d .) A ppel l ant s ar e corr ectthat , i n cons i der i ng Souther l and’ s m ot i on, the r ecor d i s t o be v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to A p p e llan ts a n d th e D istric t C o u rt is n o t to e n g a g e in fac tfi ndi ng. W e addi t i onal l ynot e, how ever , thatnotal l fac tual di s put es cons t i tut e a “genui ne” i s s ue of f

actpr ecl udi ng s um m aryj udgm ent . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Pr emi s es K now n as 717 South W oodw ar d St . , 2 F. 3d 529, 533 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( di s cus s i ng m e a n in g o f

“ g e n u in e ” iss u e o f

f a c t, statin g , “[ a ]lth o u g h e n tit led to th e b e n e f it o f a ll j us t i f i able i nfer ence s fr om the evi dence . . . . [I ] f the nonmovi ng party ’ s evi dence , w hen v iew ed in the co n text o f a ll o f th e e v iden ce , co u ld n o t be c red it ed b ya ra ti o n al j u ror, su m m a ryju d g m e n t m a yb e g ra n ted .” (e m p h a sis a d d e d ) (c iti n g A n d e rso n v . L ib e rty L o b b y , In c ., 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 -4 9 , 2 5 5 (1 9 8 6 )) ); J im in e z v . A ll A m . R a th s k e lle r, I n c ., 503 F. 3d 247, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( emphasi zi ng thatnotal l i s s ues ar e “ge nui ne, ” not i ng that “L ibertyL o b b ysp ec ifi ca ll yrec o g n izes the tr ial jud g e’s p o w er to g ran t sum m ary jud g m en t on d ispu ted re co rds” ); L ibertyL o b b y , 4 7 7 U . S . at 25 2 (st ati n g “[ t] h e m ere exi s t ence of a s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence i n s upportof the [non- m ovi ng party ’ s ] pos i t i on w i l l be insu ff ici en t” t o p rec lud e su m m aryjud g m en t) . 8 s t at ed w e w er e as s i s t i ng N ew Y ork Pol i ce w i th an i nves t i gat i on and as ked [Souther l and] h is n a m e .”).) N e ith e r D e t. C u b b in ’s a f f id a v it n o r S o u th e rla n d ’s c o m p lain t p u rp o rt to des cr i be an i ntr oduct i on byA ppel l ant s t o Souther l and, butA ppel l ant s ur ge us t o vi ew thos e document s as s ugges t i ng thatbefor e Souther l and fa l s el yi dent i fi ed hi m s el f, he w as to ld th a t h e w a s a “ p e rs o n o f in te re s t in a N e w Y o rk h o m ic id e .” 5 O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC ourtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherther e i s a genui ne i s s ue ofT he D i s tr i ctC ourts houl d al s o be mi ndful of ours upervi s oryrul e i n Forbes v. T w p. of

L ow erM er i on, 313 F. 3d 144 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I f the courtdeni es both part i es ’ m ot i ons for s um m aryj udgm ent , i tw i l l need t o “s peci fythos e mat er i al fac t s thatar e and a r e not su b jec t to g e n u in e d isp u te a n d e x p lain th e ir m a ter iality .” Id . at 1 4 6 . T h is ru le is nece s s aryt o al l ow us t o det erm i ne the l i m i t s of ourj ur i s di ct i on s houl d w e be pr es ent ed w i th an i nt er l ocut oryappea l of a de ni al of s um m aryj udgm entforqual i fi ed i m m uni ty . I d. at148- 49. 9 m at er i al fac t , focus i ng es peci al l yon w hetherSouther l and w as t ol d thathe w as the s ubj ect o f a n o f f ic ia l in v e s tig a tio n o f

a v io la tio n o f

la w p ri o r t o f

u rn is h in g f

a ls e in f o rm a tio n . T hi s r equi r es both a r evi ew of the r ecor d, t o det erm i ne i f ther e i s a genui ne di s put e of f a c t, an d a c o n sid e ra tio n o f p ro b a b le c a u se , to d e ter m in e if th e d isp u te o f

f a c t is m a ter ial. 6 S e e S m ith v . J o h n s o n & J o h n s o n , 5 9 3 F .3 d2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( “ T o b e m a te ri a l, a di s put ed fa ctm us tbe one thatm i ght‘ aff ectthe out come of the s ui tundergoverni ng law . ’” (q u o ti n g L ibertyL o b b y , 4 7 7 U . S . at 24 8 )). B . Q u a li fi ed Im m u n it y T he D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s anal y s i s of qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi s notonl yconcl us ory , but , l i ke th e a n a l y s i s o f

p r o b a b l e c a u s e , i ti s i n c o rr e c t l yp r e d i c a t e d o n th e i s s u e o f “ p r e t e x t . ” On rem an d , if th e D istri ct C o u rtfin d s tha t pro b ab le ca u se w as lac k ing fo r S o u therlan d ’s arr es t , i ts houl d pr ocee d t o r econs i derw hetherA ppel l ant s ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed im m u n ity. T h e S u p re m e C o u rth a s d is tille d th e q u a lif ie d im m u n ity a n a lysis in to tw o in q u ir ie s . F i r s t , th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l q u e s t i o n i s “ wh e th e rth e f a c t s th a ta p l a i n t i f

f h a s a l l e g e d o rs h o wn m ake outa vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” Pear s on v. C al l ahan, 129 S. C t . 808, 81610

( 2009) ( quot i ng Sauci erv. K at z, 533 U . S. 194, 201 ( 2001) ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . Second, the qual i fi ed i m m uni tyques t i on i s “w hetherthe r i ghtati s s ue w as ‘ cl ear l yes t abl i s hed’ at the t i m e of adefe ndant ’ s al l eged mi s conduct . ” I d. T he cons t i tut i onal ques t i on w i l l have b e e n re so lv e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt’s p ro b a b le c a u se a n a ly sis . T h e q u a lifie d im m u n ity q u e s tio n w ill b e th e la s t in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p ro p e r. T h e d o c trin e o f

q u a lifie d im m u n ityse rv e s to p ro tec t o f f ice rs f ro m c iv il l iab ili ty

“ w h e n th e yp e rf

o rm th e ir d u ties re a so n a b ly .” P e a rso n , 1 2 9 S .C t. at 8 1 5 . A c c o rd in g ly , it g ives “a m p le roo m fo r m ist ak en jud g m en ts, ” H u n ter v. B ry an t, 5 0 2 U . S . 2 2 4 , 2 2 9 (19 9 1 ), w hetherthe off

i ci al ’ s m i s t ake i s a mi s t ake of fac t , m i s t ake of

l aw , orm i s t ake ba s ed on m i xed ques t i ons of fa ctand l aw , Pear s on, 129 S. C t . at815. W e i nt i m at ed i n C ur l eyv. K l em thatthe cons t i tut i onal ques t i on of the Sauci er anal y s i s focus es on w hetherther e w as a r eas onabl e mi s t ake of fac t , w her eas the qual i fi ed im m u n ityq u esti o n ad d resse s rea so n ab le m ist ak es o f law . 4 9 9 F . 3 d 1 9 9 , 2 1 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); se e a lso S a u c ier , 5 3 3 U .S . at 2 0 4 -0 6 (d istin g u ish in g b e tw e e n in q u iryo f F o u rth A m endmentvi ol at i ons and i nqui ryof qual i fi ed i m m uni tyent i t l ement ) . A m i s t ake of fac t is a n o f f ic e r’ s m is p e rc e p tio n o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s b yw h ic h h e is s u rr o u n d e d . S e e , e .g ., C ur l ey , 499 F. 3d at214- 15 ( di s cus s i ng w hetheri tw as r eas onabl e foroffi cert o m ake the fac tual m i s t ake of

bel i evi ng thatanotheroffi cer , atw hom he s hot , w as the arm ed and d a n g e ro u s s u s p e c t) ; C o u d e n v . D u f f y , 4 4 6 F .3 d 4 8 3 , 5 0 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( W e is , J ., di s s ent i ng) ( s t at i ng offi cer s ’ act i ons w er e pr ot ect ed byqual i fi ed i m m uni tybecaus e off i cer11

m ade f actual m i s t ake of

bel i evi ng he w as confr ont i ng a per s on i n the comm i s s i on of bur gl ary , w hen i n fac tper s on w as r es i dentof hom e) ; Sauci er , 533 U . S. at204 ( hypothes i zi ng i n exce s s i ve for ce c as e abouta r eas onabl e butm i s t aken be l i ef of fac tthat s u s p e c twa s l i k e l yt o f

i g h tb a c k ) . We p r o t e c tr e a s o n a b l e mi s t a k e s o f f a c tb e c a u s e we re c o g n ize th a t “p o lice o f f ice rs a re o f

ten f o rc e d to m a k e sp lit -se c o n d ju d g m e n ts in ci r cumst ance s thatar e t ens e, uncert ai n, and r api dl yevol vi ng. ” Sauci er , 533 U . S. at205 (q u o tin g G ra h a m v . C o n n o r, 4 9 0 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 7 (1 9 8 9 )) . T he qual i fi ed i m m uni tyques t i on, on the otherhand, ans w er s w hetheran off i cer m ade ar eas onabl e mi s t ake of l aw . C ur l ey , 499 F. 3d at214; s ee a l s o Sauci er , 533 U . S. at 205. T o under s t and w hatcons t i tut es a mi s t ake of l aw , i ti s nece s s aryt o under s t and the qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi nqui ry . T he di s pos i t i ve ques t i on i n det erm i ni ng w hetheran off i cer v io late d “ c lea rlye sta b lish e d ” c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts is w h e th e r “ it w o u ldh a v e b e e n c lea r to a re a so n a b le o f

f ice r” th a t h is c o n d u c t w a s u n law f u l— h e re , tha t “th e re w a s n o p ro b a b le c a u s e t o a rr e s t . ” G i l l e s v . D a v i s , 4 2 7 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 3 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, the q u esti o n is w h ethe r, “in ligh t of p re-ex ist ing law , ” the “c o n tou rs” o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s r i ght s w er e s uffi ci ent l ycl ears uch thatthe unl aw ful nes s of the off i cer ’ s conduct , i n the sp e c if ic c irc u m sta n c e s th a t h e c o n f ro n ted , w o u ldh a v e b e e n ap p a re n t to a re a so n a b le p erso n . P af

f v . K alt en b ac h , 2 0 4 F . 3 d 4 2 5 , 4 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A m i s t ake of

l aw , then, i s a mi s t ake a s t o the l egal cons tr ai nt s on part i cul arpol i ce conduct . Sauci er , 533 U . S. at205; s ee, e. g. , G i l l es v. D avi s , 427 F. 3d 197, 205- 0612

( fi ndi ng qual i fi ed i m m uni typr ot ect ed off i cerw ho arr es t ed w om an forus i ng abus i ve l anguage , becaus e, “[a ] tthe l eas t , r eas onabl e mi nds coul d di s agr ee w hetherG i l l es ’ s peec h w as pr ot ect ed” unde rFi r s tA m endment ) ; E gol f, 526 F. 3d 104, 110- 11 & nn. 10- 11 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng offi cerent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tyaft erarr es t i ng pr ot es t or s for l ew dnes s w hen theyexpos ed thei rbutt ocks becaus e, gi ven l ack of cl ar i tyaboutw hat con st i tutes nu dityun der Pen nsy l van i a l ew dn ess s t atute, “the p aram et ers of p robable cause w ere co n fu sing ”); C o u d en , 4 4 6 F . 3 d at 49 2 (no ti n g q u ali fied im m u n ityp rotec ts of fice rs f ro m th e “ h a z yb o rd e r” b e tw e e n e x c e ss iv e a n d a c c e p tab le f o rc e ). W e p ro tec t re a so n a b le m i s t akes of l aw becaus e “[ i ] ti s s om et i m es di ffi cul tforan off i cert o det erm i ne how the r el evantl egal doctr i ne . . . w i l l appl yt o the fa ctual s i tuat i on the off i cerconfr ont s . ” S au cier, 5 3 3 U . S . at 20 5 . T h is i s esp ec ial lytru e in th e F o u rth A m en d m en t con text w h ere the j ur i s prudence “mustacc om m odat e l i m i t l es s fac tual ci r cumst ance s , ” and our pr ece dent s do “notal w ay s gi ve a c l earans w er ” as t o w hatthe l aw r equi r es of a g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia l. I d . A ppel l ant s ’ m os tvi abl e ar gum ent , w hi ch theyhave ba r el yart i cul at ed, i s thatthey a re e n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityb e c a u se th e ym a d e a m ista k e o f law . T h e ysu g g e st th a t, if in f o rm in g S o u th e rla n d th a t th e yw e re sp e a k in g to h im in o rd e r to a ss ist th e N Y P D w ith a dea th i nves t i gat i on i s i ns uffi ci entt o cr eat e pr obabl e caus e, the i ns uffi ci encyof A ppel l ant s ’ w or ds w oul d nothave be en cl eart o a r eas onabl e off i cer . W e r emand t o the D i stri ctC ou rtt o co nd uct, i f nec essary , the ap propri at e qu al i fi ed im m un i tyanaly si s.13 I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand t o the D i s tr i ctC ourtfor furtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.