2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-6-2005 

# W right v . P hi l a delphi a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-1633

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" W r i ght v . P hi l a de lp hi a" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 929. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/929P 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. 03- 1633
KI M BE RL Y M AR NE L L WRI GHT

v. CI TY O F P HI LAD ELPHI A; DA NI EL HEEN EY, DETECTI VE, BADGE NUM BER 6 5 0 ; DOE( S ) , P OLI CE OF F I CER , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND A S P OL I CE OF F I CE RS AND D ETE CT I V ES FO R T H E C I TY O F PH I LA D ELPH I A ; D EN I SE O ’ M A L L E Y , PO L I C E O FFICE R , B A D G E N U M B E R 4335 DANI E L HE E NE Y; DE NI S E O’ M AL L E Y,

A pell ants . O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C
. N o. 01- cv- 6160) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le N o rm a L . S h ap ir o

A r gued Sept ember27, 2004 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S , and S M ITH , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed J une 6, 2005)
R i char d Feder C r ai g G ot t l i eb ( A r gued) C i t ySol i ci t or 1515 A r ch St r eet , 17 Fl oor th2 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS Paul M es s i ng ( A r gued) K ai r y s , R udovs ky , E ps t ei n, M es s i ng 924 C herr ySt r eet , Sui t e 500 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. A ft erK i m ber l yW r i ghtw as s exual l yas s aul t ed bytw o m en, sh e b r o k e a w in d o w a n d e n ter e d th e h o u se in w h ich th e a ss a u lt t o o k p l a c e f

o rt h e p u rp o s e o f

r e t r i e v i n g h e r c l o t h e s . F o l l o wi n g t wo sep ara te i n v esti g ati o n s, co n d u cted b ythe d ef en d a n t of

fice rs
conce r ni ng t he s exual as s aul t and t he br eak- i n, W r i ghtw as char ged
w i t h bur gl ary , t heft , cr i m i nal t r es pas s , and cr i m i nal m i s chi ef. T he char ges agai ns tW r i ght w er e eventual l y di s m i s s ed. T her eaf t er , s he fi led a § 1983 a ct i on agai ns tthe def endantoffi cer s al l egi ng that t heyvi ol at ed hercons t i tut i onal r i gh ts. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed t he o f f i c e r s ’ mot i o n f

o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t o n t h e i s s ue of qual i fi ed im m uni t yand the def endant s now appea l
. B eca us e the fac t s and ci r cumst ance s w i t hi n the arr es t i ng offi cers’ know l edge1 B e c a u s e w e a r e r e v i e w i n g a c l a i m o f q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y, 1 2 w e view t he factual al l egati on s i n the l i gh t m ost favo rabl e to 3 W r i g h t , t h e p a r t yc l a i mi n g i n j u r y . S e e S a u c i e rv . Ka t z , 5 3 3 U. S. 4 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (2 0 0 1 ). 3

w er e s uffi ci entt o w arr anta prudent per s on bel i evi ng t hatW r i ght had comm i t t ed t he cr i m e of cr i m i nal t r es pas s , w e conclud e t hat t her e w as no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. T her efor e, w e hol d t hatt he off i cers w ere ent i t l ed to qua l i fi ed im m un i t yand w e w i l l rever se d e n ial o f th e o f f ice rs’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. I. F a cts A . T h e A ss a u lt W r i ght ’ s act i on ar i s es fr om t w o s epar at e pol i ce i nves t i gat i ons , one fora s exual as s aul tand o n e fora r epor t ed br eaki ng and entr y . O n the m orni ng of D ece m ber16, 1999, 1 W r i ghtw as dr i vi ng al one on C hel t en A venue i n Phi l adel phi a w hen hercarbr o k e dow n. T w o m en, R onal d J acks on and N i m ar T hom ps on, s t opped and of fer ed W r i ghtas s i s t ance . Instea d of h e lp in g h e r, th e yd ru g g e d h e r a n d f o rc ib lyto o k h e r to a b e a u ty par l orow ned byJ acks on. Soon ther eaf t er , J acks on and Thom ps on too k W r i ght fr om t he beauty par l or t o a hom e on C edarP ark A venue w her e s he w as h el d i n an i nt oxi cat ed s t at e fors ever al4 hour s . W hen s he aw oke, s he w as par t i al l yundr es s ed. She bel i eved t hats he had be en s exual l yas s aul t ed. E ventual l y , th e t w o m en for ced W r i ghtoutof the hous e, l eavi ng heron the fr ontpor ch. W r i ghtknocked on s ever al nei ghbor s ’ door s forhel p, butr ece i ved
no r es pons e. She t hen r eturned to t he hous e w her e s he had be en
a s s a u l t e d , b r o k e a s m a l l w i n d o w p a n e a n d r e e n t e r e d t h e p r o p e r t y. O nce i ns i de, W r i ghtr etr i eved her per s onal bel ongi ngs , as w el l as t hr ee pl as t i c bags cont ai ni ng s ever al i t ems s uch as : a phot ogr aph of one of her at t acke r s , s ever al pi ece s of m ai l , tw o canc el l ed che cks
m a d e o u t t o J a c k s o n , u n o p e n e d b o ttle s o f a lc o h o l, w a tc h e s , a j acke t , cl ot hes , and a cor dl es s phone. W r i ghtl at ert ol d pol i ce that
s h e to o k th e s e ite m s to h e lp id e n tif yh e r a tta c k e rs . A ft erl eavi ng t he C edarPar k hom e w i t h t he it em s , W r i ght
w as abl e t o geta r i de fr om a t axi t o a fr i end’ s hom e. T he fol l ow i ng day , W r i ght ’ s s i s t ert ook her t o t he hos pi t al w her e s he w as t r eat ed forherphy s i cal i nj ur i es . A t t he hos pi t al , W r i ghtw as i nt ervi ew ed byO ffi cerM anni ng t o w h o m s he des cr i bed the ci r cumst ance s of t he att ack a nd expl ai ned thats he had br oken a w i ndow t o getback i ns i de the r es i dence t o r etr i eve he rcl othes
. So m et i m e dur i ng her h o sp ital sta y , sh e w a s tre a te d a n d e x a m in e d f o r se x u a l as sa u lt.5 S p e c i me n s we r e t a k e n f o rt h e p u rp o s e o f

c o l l e c t i n g a n yDNA
e v id e n c e th a t m a yh a v e b e e n le f t o n h e r b o d yb yh e r a tta c k e rs . M ean w h il e, J acks on’ s s i s t erD eni s e Pue, t he ow nerof the C e d a r P a rk h o m e w h e re th e a ss a u lt o c c u rre d , rep o rte d th e b re a k -in of herhom e. T her e w er e thus t w o cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i ons i ni t i at ed b ythe P h il ad elph ia P o lic e D ep artm en t: o n e re lat ed to W ri g h t’ s sexual ass aultt hat w a s to be invest i gated byO ffi cer D enis e O ’ M al l eyand one r el at ed t o Pue’ s al l egat i ons of a b reak- i n t hat
w a s t o b e i n v e s t i g a t e d b y D e t e c t i v e D a n i e l H e e n e y. B. The I nve s t i ga t i ons T he i nves t i gat i on of the s exual as s aul tbegan on D ece m ber 17, 1999, w hen O ’ M al l eyfi r s ti nt ervi ew ed W r i ght
. I n the i nt ervi ew , W r i ghtdes cr i bed the ci r cumst ance s of the a s s aul tand
sa id th a t sh e h a d b ro k e n th e w in d o w to g e t b a c k in to th e h o u se to gethercl ot hes
. O n D ece m ber19, the pol i ce, acc om pani ed by W r i ghtand herm ot her , pr ocee ded t o l ocat e the hous e w her e s he h a d b e e n a ss a u lted . A f

ter lo c a tin g th e h o u se , W rig h t’s m o th e r to ld pol i ce thatW r i ght had r emoved pr oper t yfr om the hous e t o pr ove t hats he had be en ther e. T her eaf t er , W r i ghtgav e pol i ce the thr ee bags of i t ems t aken f

r om Pue’ s hous e. T h e i t ems w er e l at er6 r el eas ed t o Pue. M eanw hi l e, t he bur gl aryi nves t i gat i on had begun on D e c e m b e r 1 6 w h e n H e e n e yw e n t to th e C e d a r P a rk h o m e to exami ne the s cene of the br eak- i n. Pue t ol d H eeney dur i ng an interview that sh e lea rne d fro m a n eigh b o r th at h er b roth er, J acks on, had br ought a w om an t o t he hous e w hi l e s he w as atw or k. D uri ng t he in vest i gati on , H eeneydis cov ered a broken pan e of g l ass b yt h e f r o n td o o ra n d h e r e c o v e r e d a s l i p o f p a p e r w i t h t he n a me “K i m ber l yW r i ght ” on i t . T he fol l ow i ng day , H eene yi nt ervi ew ed Jac k so n . Jac k so n ad m itted th at he b rou g h t W ri g h t t o h is si ster’s hous e, buthe cl ai m ed thats he w as extr emel yi nt oxi cat ed and that
s he r efus ed t o go w hen he t ol d hert o l eave . J acks on deni ed havi ng
s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h W r i ghtand t ol d H eene y t hat he and a fr i end h a d lef t th e h o u se a f

te r c a lli n g th e p o lice b e c a u se sh e re f u se d to le a v e . T h e t w o p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t o r s , O ’ M a l l e y a n d H e e n e y, d isag ree as to w h en ea c h f ir s t b ec am e a w are o f th e o ther’s i nves t i gat i on. O ’ M al l eyr emem ber s D ece m ber19 as the dayon
w hic h s he r ece i ved fa cs i m i l es of Pue’ s bur gl arycompl ai ntfr om H e e n e y ’s o f

f ice
. H e e n e y , h o w e v e r, d o c u m e n ted in h is re p o rt,7 d a t e d De c e mb e r 17 , 19 9 9 , t h a tO’ M a l l e yh a d r e l a t e d t o h i m a
s um m aryof W r i ght ’ s al l ega ti ons . T he off i cer s s poke on a f

ew
o c c a s io n s th ro u g h o u t th e irre s p e c tiv e in v e s tig a tio n s . O n Jan u ary2 4 , 2 0 0 0 , O ’M all eyd eterm ined that W ri g h t’ s
s exual as s aul tcompl ai ntw as unfounded a nd t ol d H eene ythatthe
c a s e d i d n o th a v e a s u ff i c i e nt fo u n d a t i o n t o p r o c e e d
. Ats o me
u n k n o w n d a te, b u t p rio r to O ’M a ll e y c lo sin g th e se x u a l as sa u lt
ca se, H ee n ey p rep are d an af fid av it o f p rob ab le c au se f o r W ri g h t’ s
a rre s t in re g a rd to th e b u rg lar yo f P u e ’s r e sid e n c e . H is a f f id a v it
w as ap p r o v e d b ya n As s i s t a n tDi s t r i c tAt t o r n e yo n J a n u a r y3 0, 2000. O n Feb ruary 8, 20 00 , H eeney arr est ed W ri gh t w i t h o u t a
w arr antfora numberof off ens es , i ncl udi ng bur gl ary , t heft , and
cr i m i nal t r es pas s . T he arr es tr epor tl i s t s bot h H eene yand O ’ M al l ey
as t he pol i ce pe r s onnel i nvol ved. N ear l ytw o m onths aft erher
a rre st, th e c h a rg e s a g a in st W rig h t w e re d ism iss e d f o r f a ilu re to pr os ecut e bec aus e P ue fai l ed t o appea r at t he pr el i m i naryhear i ng. S h o rtlya f

ter th e d ism iss a l o f

th e c h a rg e s a g a in st W rig h t, P h ilad e lp h ia p o lice au th o rities re o p e n e d a n u m b e r o f se x u a l as sa u lt i nves t i gat i ons , i ncl udi ng W r i ght ’ s cas e. T he cas es w er e r eopene d8 f o llo w in g c o m p lain ts m a d e b yv ictim s, th e W o m e n ’s L a w P rojec t, and otheradvoca cygr oups co n cer ni ng the manneri n w hi ch P hil adelphi a po l i ce of

fi cers w ere hand l i ng sexual as sa u l tcases. A ft ert he ca s e w as r eopene d, D N A s ampl es confi r m ed thatJ acks on
w as t he s our ce of

t he s emen found in the ra pe exa m t hatw as per form ed on W r i ght
. W i t hi n t hr ee mont hs aft erW r i ght ’ s cas e w as
re o p e n e d , Ja c k so n a n d T h o m p so n w e re a rre ste d a n d c h a rg e d w ith the s ex u al assa u lto n W ri g h t. B o th m en lat er p led g u il tyan d w ere
s ent ence d t o per i ods of i ncar cer at i on. I n N ovem b er 2001, t he P h il adel phi a Pol i ce I nt ernal A ffa i r s D i vi s i on i s s ued a r eport fi ndi ng t hatO ’ M al l ey had “conduc t ed a l es s than pr oper/ t hor ough i nves t i gat i on” of W r i ght ’ s as s aul tcas e and that her cas e s houl d not have be en cl os ed as unfounded. A ft erhercas e w as r eopene d and J acks on and Thom ps on
w er e arr es t ed, W r i ghtfi l ed t he pr es ent§ 1983 act i on i n t he D i s t r i ct C our tagai ns t t he C i t yof Phi l adel phi a and the off i cer s forvi ol at i ng her F ir st, Four t h, and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s . She sp e c if ica llyc laim e d th a t sh e w a s f a lse lya rre ste d a n d m a licio u sly p rose cu ted b yH ee n eyan d O ’M all ey . W ri g h t m o v ed fo r sum m ary jud g m en t on a n u m b er o f issu es, in clud ing that the d ef en d an ts w ere9 notent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . T he def endant s oppos ed W r i ght ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm ent , and i ndepende nt l ym oved fors um m aryj udgm enton t w o i s s ues , i ncl udi ng thatO ’ M al l eyand H ee n eyw ere en ti tl ed to q u ali f ied im m u n ity . T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ied b o th c ro ss -m o tio n s f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. S p e c if ica lly
w ith reg ard to the issue o f q u ali fied im m u n ity , the D istri ct C o u rt rul ed thati f al l dis pu t ed fa cts w e re view ed in the li gh tm ost favor abl e t o W r i ght , a r eas onabl e fac t - fi nder coul d concl ude that O ’ M al l eyand H eene y unr eas onabl ydi s m i s s ed W r i ght ’ s purpor t ed
re a so n f o r he r br e a k -in

– to o b tain e v id e n c e o f th e se x u a l a s s a u lt ag ains ther– and thatt he r eas on fort he br eak- i n s houl d have negat ed anyper cept i on of pr obabl e ca us e t o s us pectthatW r i ght had the r equi s i t e i nt entforthe bur gl ary . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not analy ze, i nd epen den t l y , w hetherprobab l e cause ex i ste d to arres t W r i g h tf o rc r i mi n a l t r e s p a s s . O’ M a l l e ya n d Hee n e ya p p e a l t he deni al of their mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton t hei rdefe ns e of q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. I I . Juri s di ct i on W e f irst c o n sid e r w h e th e r w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to ent er t ai n t hi s i nt er l ocut oryappea l of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der10 deny i ng qual i fi ed i m m uni t yt o O ’ M al l eyand H eene y . A tthe out s et , w e not e that“the Supr eme C our thas r epea t edl ys t r es s ed t he im po rt ance o f res olvi ng i m m un i t yqu est i on s atthe earl i est pos s i bl e s t ages of l i t i gat i on, ” C ur l eyv. K l em, 298 F. 3d 271, 277 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (c o llec tin g c a se s), b e c a u se “ [ if ] a c a se is
e rro n e o u slyp e rm itt e d to g o to trial, th e n q u a lifie d im m u n ityis
e f f e c t i v e l y l o s t . ” I d
. A d e c i s i o n o n q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y, how ever , “w i l l be pr ematur e w hen ther e ar e unr es ol ved di s put es
o f h is to ri c a l f

a c t r e le v a n t to th e im m u n ity a n a lysis .” Id . a t 2 7 8
. D espi t e t he int erl ocu t orynatur e of q uali fi ed im m un i t yrul i ng s, theyare rev iew ab le on ap p ea l w h ere the d ispu te do es n o t tu rn
u p o n “w h ich f

ac ts th e p arti es m igh t be a b le t o p rov e, bu t, rathe r,
w h e th e r o r n o t ce rta in g iv e n f a c ts s h o w e d a v io latio n o f ‘c lea rly
e s ta b lis h e d ’ l a w .” J o h n s o n v . J o n e s , 5 1 5 U .S . 3 0 4 , 3 1 1 (1 9 9 5 ). T h e m a ter ial f

a c ts h e re a re n o t in d isp u te. T h e iss u e b e f o re u s is t he pur el yl egal ques t i on of w hetherthe fa ct s al l eged, even i n t he lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to W rig h t, w e re leg a llysu f f icie n t to
es t abl i s h pr obabl e ca us e forherarr es t . T her efor e, thi s C our thas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. See M i t chell v. F orsyt h, 47 2 U
. S
. 51 1, 53 0 (198 5). W e exerci se11 pl enaryr evi ew of or der s r ej ect i ng qual i fi ed i m m uni t yatthe
s um m aryj udgm ents t age. See Eddyv. V . I . W at er& Pow er A u th ., 2 5 6 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). I I I . D i s cus s i on I n heract i on, W r i ghtr ai s es tw o Four t h A m endment
v io latio n s: (1 ) f

a lse a rre st b a se d o n h e r a rre st f o r b u rg lar y , the f

t,
cr i m i nal t r es pas s , and cr i m i nal m i s chi ef, and ( 2) m al i ci ous p rose cu ti o n b ase d o n the s am e c h arg es. T h e d ef en d an t of

fice rs
m aintain th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred b yd en y ing their sum m ary j ud gm ent m oti on on t heirqu al i fi ed im m un i t ydefe nse. T heyfi rs t
ar gue thatt heyvi ol at ed no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtbyarr es t i ng W ri g h t b e c a u s e , g iv e n th e in f o rm a tio n th e yp o s s e s s e d , a
r eas onabl e per s on i n t hei rs i tuat i on coul d have be l i eved thats he had comm i t t ed the pr oper t yand theftoffe ns es . I n t he al t ernat i ve, t heys ubm i tthateven i f W r i ght ’ s cons t i tut i onal
r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed, t hos e r i ght s w er e notcl ear l yes t abl i s hed at t he t i m e of the arr es t . Fi nal l y , theycl ai m thatnei t heroffi cer in d iv id u a llyh a d su f

f icie n t k n o w led g e o f

W rig h t’s ra p e to n e g a te
a n yp e rc e iv e d e x is te n c e o f p ro b a b le c a u s e . A . Q u a li fi ed Im m u n it y12 Sect i on 1983 pr ovi des a ca us e of a ct i on agai ns tany per s on w ho, act i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw , depr i ves anotherof hi s orherfede r al r i ght s . W hen an of fi cer ’ s act i ons gi ve r i s e t o a § 1 9 8 3 c laim , the p riv ileg e o f q u a lifie d im m u n ity , in c e rta in ci r cumst ance s , can s erve as a s hi el d fr om s ui t . See H unt erv. B r y ant , 502 U
. S. 224, 227 ( 1991)
. T he pr i m arypurpos e of
a f f o r d i n g p u b l i c o f

f i c i a l s th e p r i v i l e g e o f

q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y, t hus i ns ul at i ng t hem from sui t , i s t o pr ot ectthem “fr om undue i nt er fer ence w i t h t hei rdut i es and fr om pot ent i al l ydi s abl i ng t hr eat s of l i abi l i t y . ” El derv. H ol l ow ay , 510 U
. S. 510, 514 ( 1994) ( quot i ng H ar l ow v. Fi t zger al d, 457 U
. S. 800, 806 ( 1982) )
. T he pr i vi l ege of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , how ever , can be
over come w hen s t at e off i ci al s vi ol at e “c l ear l yes t abl i s hed
s t atut or yorcons t i tut i onal r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on
wo u l d h a v e k n o wn . ” Ha r l o w, 4 5 7 U. S
. a t8 1 8
. Th e S u p r e me C our t , i n Sauci erv. K at z, expl ai ned the ana l yt i cal pr oces s for det erm i ni ng w hen the pr i vi l ege of qual i fi ed has been ove r come: A cour tr equi r ed t o rul e upon the qual i fi ed im m u n ityiss u e m u st c o n sid e r, th e n , this t hreshol d q uest i on : T aken i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he part yas s ert i ng the i nj ury , do t he fac t s al l eged s how the off i cer ’ s conductvi ol at ed a cons t i tut i onal r i ght ? T hi s m us tbe the i ni t i al13 in q u iry
. . . . If

n o c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t w o u ld have be en vi ol at ed w er e the al l egat i ons es t abl i s hed, t her e i s no nece s s i t yforfur t her i n q u i r i e s c o n c e r n i n g q u a l i f i e d i mm u n i t y . On t he otherhand, i f a vi ol at i on coul d be made out on a fav orabl e view of the part i es’ subm i ssi on s, t he next , s equent i al s t ep i s t o as k w hetherthe ri g h t w a s c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d
. 5 3 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). T her e i s s om e di s agr eementas t o how Sauci ers houl d be i nterpret ed. S pecifi cal l y , the d i spute i s w hethera cou rtm ust det erm i ne the i s s ue of w hetherther e has been a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on befor e r eac hi ng t he qual i fi ed i m m uni t yques t i on, or
w hethert hati nqui r yi s t he fi r s tpartof a tw o- pr onged t es tfor qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . I n s om e ca s es , w e have i nt erpr et ed Sauci er t o i m pl yt hatt he i s s ue of qua l i fi ed i m m uni t yi s onl yr el evant aft era courthas concl uded thata cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on has
occurr ed. I n t hatvi ew , i f ther e i s no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, t her e i s no r eas on t o r eac h t he qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi s s ue. See,
e. g. , C ar s w el l v. B or ough of H om es t ead, 381 F. 3d 235, 237 ( 3d C i r . 2004)
. I n ot hercas es , w e have i nt erpr et ed Sauci ert o m ean t hat a defend ant i s ent i t l ed to qua l i fi ed im m un i t yun l ess a pl ai nt i ff c an pr ove both thata cons t i tut i onal r i ghthas been vi ol at ed, and then thatthe cons t i tut i onal r i ghtvi ol at ed w as14 c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d . S e e , e .g ., B ennettv. M urphy , 274 F. 3d 133, 136- 37 ( 3d C i r . 2002)
. U nderei t heri nt erpr et at i on, i f no
con st i tuti on al viol at i on i s foun d, a cou rtneed no tadd res s
w hethera r eas onabl e off i cerw oul d have know n he ors he w as vi ol at i ng a cl ear l yes t abl i s hed r i ght
. A s a pr act i cal m att er , the
o u tcom e w il l be th e sa m e w h ethe r w e c o n clud e tha t th e o ff icers are i m m un e from sui tor i nst ead, that the p l ai nti ff h as no ca use
o f a c tio n . O urconcurr i ng col l eague bel i eves thatB r os s eau v. H a u g e n , _
__ U .S ._
__ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 59 6 (2 0 0 4 ), co n c lu siv e ly
re so lv e s th is d isp u te in f a v o r o f th e f irst in ter p re tatio n . W e n o te th a t at le a st s ix o f

o u r sis ter C o u rts o f

A p p e a ls w o u ld se e m to di s agr ee. See Sampl e v. B ai l ey , ___ F. 3d ___, N o. 04- 4174, 2005 U
. S. A pp. L E X I S 8328, at*17- *19 ( 6th C i r . M ay9, 2005) (h o ld in g th a t th e f

irst ste p in th e q u a lifie d im m u n itya n a ly sis is
w hethera cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on has occurr ed) ; Si m ki ns v. B ruce, ___ F. 3d ___, N o. 04- 3072, 2005 U
. S. A pp. L E X I S 8073,
a t * 3 -* 5 (1 0 th C ir. M a y9 , 2 0 0 5 ) (s a m e ); H a rris v . C o w e ta C o u n ty , ___ F . 3 d ___ , N o . 0 3 -15 0 9 4 , 2 0 0 5 U . S
. A p p . L E X IS 6721, at*7 ( 11t h C i r . A pr i l 20, 2005) ( s ame) ; San J os e C har t erAl t hough onl yR i ver dal e di s cus s ed B r os s eau i n t he cont ext 2 of the s tructur e of the i nq u ir y , al l of the ca s es ci t ed B r os s eau f or s om e pr opos i t i on, i ndi cat i ng t he C our t s ’ fami l i ar i t y w i t h the ca s e. A s in d ica ted b yth e c a se s, th e F irst, S ix th , an d E ig h th 3 C i r cui t s have c ons i der ed qual i fi ed i m m u n it y d octr i ne i n l i ghtof B r os s eau mul t i pl e t i m es and anal y zed t he cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on a s th e f ir s t p a rt o f

th e q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity in q u ir y . 15 of the H el l s A ngel s M ot or cy cl e C l ub v. C i t yof San J os e, 402 F. 3d 962, 971 ( 9t h C i r . 2005) ( s ame) ; C r ai ghead v. L ee, 399 F. 3d 954, 961 ( 8t h C i r . 2005) ( s ame) ; R i ver dal e M i l l s C orp. v. P i m pare, 39 2 F
. 3d 55 , 60 -61 (1stC i r. 20 04 ) ( sam e). T ho se C our t s of A ppeal s cons i der ed B r os s eau a nd y ets t i l l tr eat ed the
cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on as partof the qual i fi ed i m m uni t yt es t , as oppos ed t o a s epar at e i nqui r yl i ke ourconcurr i ng col l eague
r ecomm ends
. See al s o B ur ke v. T ow n of W al pol e, ___ F. 3d

2

___ , N o . 0 4 -12 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 U . S
. A p p . L E X IS 7 1 0 5 , at * 2 2 (1st C ir
. A pr . 25, 2005) ; B ear d v. W hi t m or e Lake Sch. D i s t . , 402 F. 3d 5 9 8 , 6 0 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); M c V a yv . S iste rs o f M e rc yH e a lth Sy s . , 399 F. 3d 904, 907- 08 ( 8th C i r . 2005)
. A ccor di ngl y , at 3 l eas tt w o of thos e C our t s of A ppeal s have s peci fi cal l yconcl uded t hatdefe ndant s w oul d be ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t yupon a d e te rm in a tio n th a t n o c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n w a s c o m m itte d
. See Sampl e, 2005 U
. S. A pp. L E X I S 8328, at*18 ( “Q ual i fi ed16 i m m uni t ym us tbe gr ant ed i f the pl ai nt i ff c annotes t abl i s h eac h of thes e el ement s . ”) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ; R i ver dal e, 392 F. 3d at 6 5 (h o ld in g th a t d e f

e n d a n ts w e re e n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ity
w hen ther e w as no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on)
. W e bel i eve that t hos e C our t s of A ppeal s act ed r eas onabl yi n r eadi ng B r os s eau a s
cons i s t entw i t h a tw o- s t ep qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi nqui r y , w i t h t he fi r s ts t ep bei ng t he “c ons t i tut i onal i s s ue” a nd the s econd be i ng “w hethert he r i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed. ” T hi s cas e, how ever , does notr equi r e us t o deci de betw een t he tw o r eadi ngs of Sauci erbeca us e the cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on
w a s p re s e n te d to u s in th e c o n te x t o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. Speci fi cal l y , i n t he cour s e of a s s ert i ng thei rcl ai m forqual i fi ed i m m uni t y , H eene yand O ’ M al l eyar gue ther e w as no
cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. W e r ecogni ze thata conc l us i on thatno
cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on t ook pl ace w oul d al s o negat e an e s s ent i al
e l e mentof

t he § 1 98 3 c l a i m, s e e A l br i gh tv. O l i ve r , 51 0 U. S. 26 6, 27 1 (199 4), bu tt he co nst i tuti on al viol at i on i s best
a d d re ss e d a s a n a sp e c t o f th e q u a lifie d im m u n itya n a ly sis b ec au se th at w as th e jurisdicti o n al ba sis fo r th is i n terl o cu tory appea l , s ee Sw i ntv. C hamber s C ount yC om m ’ n, 514 U
. S. 35,17 4 9 -5 0 (1 9 9 5 ). W h ile w e c o u ld c o n stru e th e o f f ice rs’ a rg u m e n ts
as chal l engi ng W r i ght ’ s caus e of a ct i on, w e bel i eve the pr oper
w ayforus t o r evi ew t he cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on her e i s thr ough t he qual i fi ed i m m uni t ydeni al
. A ccor di ngl y , thi s opi ni on anal y zes t he thr es hol d i nqui r y , w hetherthe off i cer s ’ conduct vi ol at ed W r i ght ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , as the fi r s tpartof the q u a lif ie d im m u n ity a n a lysis
. B . P rob ab l e C au se T he Four t h A m endmentpr ovi des thatpeopl e ar e “t o be secure i n thei r per sons, ho uses, pap ers , and effects , against
u n re a so n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d se izu re s, . . . an d n o W a rra n ts s h a ll i s s u e , b u tu p o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e . ” U. S. Con s t . a me n d
. I V. To det erm i ne w hetheran arr es ti s val i d, w e l ook t o t he l aw of the
s t at e w her e the arr es tt ook pl ace . U ni t ed St at es v. M y er s , 308 F. 3d 25 1, 25 5 ( 3d Ci r . 20 02 ) ( c i t i ng K e rv. Cal i fo r ni a , 37 4 U. S. 2 3 , 3 7 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ( p l u r a l i t yo p i n i o n ) )
. Un d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w, pol i ce of fi cer s can e xecut e w arr ant l es s arr es t s forfel oni es and anygr ade of

t heftand att empt ed theft
. See 1 8 P a . C o n s. S tat. A nn. § 3904; C om m onw eal t h v. T ay l or , 677 A
. 2d 846 ( Pa. Super
. C t . 1996) ( not i ng t hatpol i ce of fi cer s m aym ake18 wa r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t s f

o rf e l o n i e s o rb r e a c h e s o f

th e p e a c e )
. An
a rre st b ya law e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f ice r w ith o u t a w a rra n t “is
re a so n a b le u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t w h e re th e re is p ro b a b le
caus e t o bel i eve thata cr i m i nal offe ns e has been ori s bei ng
c o m m itte d .” D e v e n p e c k v . A lf o rd , 1 2 5 S . C t. 5 8 8 , 5 9 3 (2 0 0 4 ). W hi l e “[ t ] he pr obabl e- caus e s t andar d i s i ncapa bl e of pr eci s e def

i ni t i on orquant i fi cat i on, ” M ary l and v. Pr i ngl e, 540 U . S
. 36 6, 37 1 (200 3), al l i nterpret at i on s of prob able cause
r equi r e a be l i ef of

gui l tthati s r eas onabl e, as oppos ed t o cert ai n,
s ee H i l l v. C al i forni a, 401 U
. S. 797, 804 ( 1971) ( “Suffi ci ent probab i l i t y , no tcert ai nty , i s the touch st on e of reasona bleness
u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. . . .” ). “Pr obabl e ca us e does notr equi r e the s ame t ype of
s peci fi c evi dence of ea ch el ementof the off ens e as w oul d be
ne e de d t o s up po r ta c on vi c t i on . ” A da ms v . W i l l i a ms, 40 7 U. S. 143, 149 ( 1972)
. T her efor e, the evi dent i arys t andar d for p ro b a b le c a u se is s ig n if ica n tlylo w e r th a n th e sta n d a rd w h ich is
r e qu i r e d f

orc on vi c t i on . Se e M i c hi ga n v . D e Fi l l i pp o, 44 3 U. S. 31, 36 ( 1979) ( “W e have m ade c l earthatthe ki nds and degr ee of pr oof and the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s nece s s aryfora convi ct i on19 are n o t prereq u isi tes t o a v ali d arrest. ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted); W i l s on v. R us s o, 212 F. 3d 781, 789 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng that pr obabl e ca us e onl yr equi r es a “f ai rpr obabi l i t y ” thata per s on
c o m m itt e d th e re lev a n t cr im e ). A n a rre st w a s m a d e w ith pr obabl e ca us e i f “a tt he mom entthe arr es tw as m ade .
. . the fac t s and ci r cumst ance s w i t hi n [the off i cer s ’ ] know l edge a nd of
w h ich th eyh ad rea so n ab lytru stw o rth yinf o rm ati o n w ere
s uffi ci entt o w arr anta prudentm an i n bel i evi ng that[the
s us pect ] had comm i t t ed orw as comm i t t i ng an off ens e. ” B eck v. O hi o, 379 U
. S. 89, 91 ( 1964) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. I n other
w or ds , t he cons t i tut i onal val i di t yof the arr es tdoes notdepend
on w hethert he s us pectactual l ycomm i t t ed anycr i m e. J ohns on
v. C ampbel l , 332 F. 3d 199, 211 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. I m por t ant l yfor t hi s cas e, i ti s i r r el evantt o t he pr obabl e ca us e ana l y s i s w hat
cr i m e a s us pecti s eventual l ychar ged w i t h, B arna v. C i t yof P erth A m bo y , 42 F . 3d 80 9, 81 9 (3d C i r. 19 94 ) ( “P robable cause need onl yexi s tas t o anyoffe ns e thatcoul d be cha r ged underthe ci r cumst ance s . ”) , orw hethera per s on i s l at eracqui t t ed of the
cr i m e forw hi ch s he orhe w as arr es t ed, D eFi l l i ppo, 443 U
. S. at 36; s ee a l s o D evenpe ck, 125 S. C t . at594 ( “The rul e thatthe20 offe ns e es t abl i s hi ng pr obabl e ca us e mustbe ‘ cl os el yr el at ed’ t o, and bas ed on the s ame conductas , the off ens e i dent i fi ed bythe
arr es t i ng offi ceratt he t i m e of a r r es ti s i ncons i s t entw i t h [] p re c e d e n t.” ). W r i ghtcont ends thatbeca us e the off i cer s w er e aw ar e of
eac h ot her ’ s i nves t i gat i ons , H eene ys houl d have know n t hat W r i ghtbr oke a w i ndow and ent er ed Pue’ s hom e t o r etr i eve he r
c lo th e s a n d to g a th e r e v id e n c e to p ro v e s h e h a d b e e n a s s a u lte d
. S h e a r g u e s t h e r e f

o r e , t h a tHe e n e yk n e w o rs h o u l d h a v e k n o wn t hatt her e w as no cr i m i nal i nt entt o comm i tanyoffe ns e. T he offi cer s ar gue thatt heyhad pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tW r i ght b e c a u se th e yre a so n a b lyb e liev e d sh e c o m m itt e d b u rg lar y , the f t,
orcr i m i nal t r es pas s . T heycont end thata r eas onabl e bel i ef that
s he comm i t t ed anyof thes e off ens es ent i t l es them t o qual i fi ed i m m u n i t y. W e agr ee. W hetheranypart i cularsetof f act s suggestthat an arr est i s j us t i fi ed bypr obabl e ca us e r equi r es an exa m i nat i on of the el ement s of the cr i m e ati s s ue. W e foc us ouri nqui r yon w hether t he off i cer s had pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es therforthe off ens e of
c r i mi n a l t r e s p a s s . S e c t i o n 3 5 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) o f th e P e n n s y l v a n i a Cr i meT he o ffen se of cri m i nal tres pass i s a fel on y . 18 P a. C on s. 4 S ta t. A n n . § 3 5 0 3 (a )( 2 ). 21 C odes pr ovi des t hata per s on comm i t s the off ens e of c r i m i nal t r es pas s w hen: k n o w in g th a t h e is n o t li c e n se d o r p riv ileg e d to do s o, he: ( i ) ent er s , gai ns entr ybys ubt er fuge or s ur r ept i t i ous l yr emai ns i n anybui l di ng or o cc u p ied s tru cture o r sep ara tel ysec u red o r occupi ed por t i on t her eof; or ( i i ) br eaks i nt o anybui l di ng oroccupi ed s t ructur e ors epar at el ys ecur ed oroccupi ed por t i on t her eof. 1 8 P a. C o n s. S tat . A n n . § 3 5 0 3 (a)(1). 4 U ndert hi s s t atut e, pr obabl e ca us e exi s t s foran arr es tfor crim inal tr esp ass w h en the f ac ts an d the c ir cu m stan ce s are
s uffi ci entfora prudentper s on t o bel i eve thatthe s us pect : ( 1) ent er ed orbr oke i nt o a bui l di ng oroccupi ed s t ructur e, ( 2) k n o w in g th a t s h e o r h e h a d n o lic e n s e o r p ri v ile g e to d o s o . U n lik e b u rg lar y , w h ich re q u ire s p ro o f o f c rim in a l in ten t,
cr i m i nal t r es pas s m er el yr equi r es pr oof of s ci ent er , i n other
w or ds , t hatt he def

endanthad know l edge of a l ack of l i cens e or pr i vi l ege t o ent er . C om m onw eal t h v. W i l l i ams, 496 A
. 2d 31, 4 2 -43 (P a. S u p er. C t. 1 9 8 5 ) (cit ing C o m m o n w ea lth v . C arter,22 3 9 3 A
. 2 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 1 (P a. 19 7 8 )). L o o k in g a t th e f

a c ts in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to W rig h t,
w e as s um e s he ent er ed the r es i dence t o r etr i eve he rcl othes and evi dence of heras s aul tunderthe mi s t aken be l i ef thats he had lice n se o r p riv ileg e to e n ter . B u t, w e a re c o n c e rn e d h e re o n ly
w i t h t he ques t i on of pr obabl e ca us e, notW r i ght ’ s gui l tor i nnocenc e. T hus , even i f W r i ghtl acke d t he r equi s i t e know l edge t o comm i tcr i m i nal t r es pas s , w e musteval uat e w hetherthe t o t a l i t y o f

t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a s s u f f i c i e n tt o j u s t i f

y a
r eas onabl e bel i ef on the partof the off i cer s thatW r i ghthad
comm i t t ed a c r i m e. W r i ghtadmi t t ed t o pol i ce thats he br oke a s m al l w i ndow pane a nd ent er ed the C edarPar k r es i dence
. She l eftw i t h bags cont ai ni ng var i ous i t ems fr om the r es i dence i ncl udi ng w i ne,
w at ches , cl ot hes , and otheri t ems thatw er e unl i kel yt o hel p t he pol i ce i dent i fyherat t acke r s . She turned thos e bags overt o t he pol i ce onl yaft erherm ot heral ert ed the pol i ce a s t o her pos s es s i on of them. Pue s ai d t hatnei ghbor s had s een a w om an
a t h e r h o u se w ith h e r b ro th e r. H e e n e yf o u n d a slip o f

p a p e r w ith W ri g h t’ s n a m e o n it a t th e s c e n e o f th e a lle g e d b u rg la ry.23 A l t ho ug h h er expl anati on for enter i ng P ue’s r esi den ce i s a fac t ori n t he pr obabl e ca us e ana l y s i s , i ti s notdi s pos i t i ve. T he probab l e cause inquiryl oo ks t o the t otal i t yof the ci rcum st ances; t he s t andar d does notr equi r e thatoffi cer s corr ect l yr es ol ve
c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e o rth a tth e i rd e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f c r e d i b i l i t y,
w er e, i n r etr os pect , acc ur at e. T he off i cer s di d notbel i eve W r i ght ’ s expl anat i on forherentr y . A l t hough theym ayhave
m ade a m i s t ake, t hei rbel i ef w as notunr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the i nform at i on t he off

i cer s pos s es s ed atthe t i m e. See Paff v. K al t enbac h, 204 F. 3d 425, 437 ( 3d C i r . 2000)
. W r i ghtadmi t t ed br eaki ng a w i ndow and ent er i ng the r es i dence and r emovi ng i t em s of l i t t l e or no e vident i aryvalue, and she returned those i t ems onl yaft ert he pol i ce w er e al ert ed t o t he fa ctthats he had t h e m . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e f a c t s , th e r e w a s a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b y a nei ghborand hername w as found on a pi ece of pape ri n t he h o u se. In tho se c ir cu m stan ce s, w e c an n o t saythat the o ff icers
ac ted in an u n rea so n ab le m an n er. In it s o p inion , the D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that “the re
ar e di s put ed fa ctual i s s ues w hi ch bea rdi r ect l yupon t he ques t i on
o f w h e th e r a re a so n a b le p o lice o f f ice r c o u ld h a v e m ista k e n ly24 bel i eved thatt her e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es t[W r i ght ]
. ” ( A pp. 34. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tr eac hed thi s concl us i on, how ever , by focus i ng on t he off

ens e of bur gl aryand notthe otheroffe ns es agai ns tW r i ght
. W hen w e cons i derthe off ens e of c r i m i nal tre sp a ss , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e o f f ice rs h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to
arr esther for this off

ense. A ccordi ng l y , W ri gh t ’s w arr antl ess
arr es tforcr i m i nal t r es pas s w as nota s ei zur e i n vi ol at i on of the F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. Fi ndi ng no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, w e r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of s um m aryj udgm entbas ed on qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . I n l i ghtof thi s deci s i on, w e nee d notaddr es s w hether probab l e cause ex i st ed fo r the o t her tw o felonyoff enses, bur gl aryand theft , w i t h w hi ch s he w as char ged. See B arna, 42 F .3 d a t 8 1 9
. C . M al i ci ous Pros ecut i on O urdeci s i on al s o di s pos es of W r i ght ’ s r emai ni ng § 1983 cl ai m – m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on. W r i ghtbas es herm al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m on al l eged Four t h A m endmentvi ol at i ons
a r i s i n g f r o m h e ra r r e s ta n d p r o s e c u t i o n . To p r e v a i l o n th i s c l a i m, she m ustshow t hat the o ffi cers l acked probab l e cause to arres t25 her. A s al readydis cussed, ho w ever, there w as probab l e cause forW r i ght ’ s arr es tand pr os ecut i on forcr i m i nal tr es pas s bas ed on t he i nform at i on avai l abl e t o t he off i cer s atthe t i m e of he r
arr es t . E ven though ourdi s cus s i on of pr obabl e ca us e w as l i m i t ed t o t he cr i m i nal t r es pas s cl ai m , i tdi s pos es of her
m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m s w i t h r es pectt o al l of the cha r ges br oughtagai ns ther , i ncl udi ng the bur gl ary . B eca us e W r i ght fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hata cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as vi ol at ed, the offi cer s ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t yw i t h r es pectt o t he
m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n c laim a s w e ll. I V . C onc l us i on W e have cons i der ed al l of the ar gum ent s advanc ed bythe p a rt ie s a n d c o n c lu d e th a t n o f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n is re q u ir e d
. A ccor di ngl y , t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be r ever s ed.26 W rig h t v. C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , C as e N o. 03- 1633 S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge , concurr i ng. A lth o u g h I r e a c h th e s a m e re s u lt a s d o e s th e m a jo ri ty, I w r i t e s epar at el yt o expl ai n how i n m yvi ew w e s houl d char act er i ze the na ture of o u r inq u iry in th is ca se. W h il e the m ajorityco n side rs th is iss u e to b e u n se ttl e d , I b e liev e th a t p o sitio n is n o lo n g e r te n a b le u n d e r S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. A ccordi ng t o the m aj ori t y , i ti s unclear w hether a cou rtm ust det erm i ne the exi s t ence vel non of a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on before w ei ghi ng w hether offi ci al s s ued for t hat vi ol at i on ar e pr ot ect ed by qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , orw hetherthe fi r s tdet erm i nat i on i s par tand par cel of the s econd. I agr ee thatt he conf us i on i n t hi s ar ea be gan i n Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 533 U . S. 194 ( 2001) , and thatourcas es r efl ect th a t c o n f u s io n . Sauci ert aught that a cour tr equi r ed t o rul e on a qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi s s ue mustcons i dera “thr es hol d” ques t i on: “ T a k e n i n t h e l i g h tm o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p a r t y a s s e r t i n g th e i n j u r y, do t he fa ct s al l eged s how the off i cer ’ s conduc t vi ol at ed a cons t i tut i onal r i ght ?” 533 U
. S. at201. “I f no cons t i tut i onal r i ght w oul d have be en vi ol at ed w er e the al l egat i ons est abl i s hed, ” the C our tcont i nued, “ther e i s no nece s s i t yfo r fur t heri nqui r i es conce r ni ng qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . ” Id
. T he fi nal cl aus e i n t hat sta tem e n t ca n b e re a d tw o w a y s, a n d w e h a v e e m p lo y e d b o th r eadi ngs . A tt i m es , w e have r eas on ed t hatthe exi s t ence of a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n i s p a r t o f t h e q u a l i f

i e d i m m u n i t y i n q u i r y. S e e , e.g ., Ko

p e c v . T a te , 361 F. 3d 772, 776 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng B ennet tv. Mur

phy , 274 F. 3d 133, 136 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “I f the pl ai nt iff fai l s t o m ake outa cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, the qual i fi ed im m u n ityin q u iryis a t a n e n d ; th e o f f ice r is e n tit led to i m m uni t y . ”) )
. A t ot her t i m es , w e have decl ar ed thatdet erm i nat i on o f t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i s s u e p r e c e d e s q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. S e e , e .g ., C ars w el lv. B or ough of H om es t ead , 3 8 1 F . 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ).I n favo r of i t s pr es cr i bed “or derof batt l e, ” the Sauci er 5 C our tfori t s par texpl ai ned that [i]n th e c o u rse o f d eterm ining w h ethe r a 27 I b e liev e th a t B r os s eau v. H augen , 1 2 5 S. Ct
. 5 9 6 ( 2004) (pe r c u r i am), cl ar i fi es the corr ectr eadi ng of Sauci eron this ques t i on. I n B r os s eau , t he C our t cons i der ed w heth er a pol i ce offi cervi ol at ed a cl ear l y es t abl i s hed const i tut i onal r i ght w hen the o f f ice r sh o t a f

lee in g su sp e c t in th e b a c k . A c c o rd in g to th e C o u rt, t hi s i nqui r yw as s epar at e fr o m the ques t i on w hethera cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as vi ol at ed i n t he fi r s tpl ace . “W e expr es s no vi ew as t o t he corr ectnes s of t he C our t of A ppeal s ’ deci s i on on t he cons t i tut i onal q ues t i on i t s el f, ” the C our texpl ai ned, id
. at59 8, bu tadd ed tha t, “[w ] e bel i eve that , how everthatques t i on i s deci ded, t he C our tof A pp ea l s w as w r ong on the i s s ue of qua l i fi ed i m m uni t y . ” Id
. I m port ant l y , t he C our tpr ovided t hi s di s cl ai m er : “W e have no occa s i on t o r econs i derouri ns t ruct i on i n [ Sauci er ] th a t lo w e r c o u rts deci de the cons t i tut i onal ques t i on pr i o r to deci di ng the qual i fi ed i m m uni t yques t i on. ” Id . at 5 9 8 n .3 . A s th e c o n c u rrin g o p in io n in B r os s eau emphasi zes , thi s l as tpoi nti s not m ere lya mat t erof s emant i cs . J oi ned by J us t i ces Scal i a and G i ns bur g, J us t i ce Bre y er s t at ed: I am concerned thatt he curr ent rul e [r equi r i ng l ow er co u rt s to co n side r th e c o n sti tuti o n al qu esti o n b ef o re t he qual i fi ed i m m uni ty ques t i on] r i gi dl yr equi r es cour t s unnece s s ar i l yt o de c i d e d i f f i c u l tcons t i tut i onal ques t i ons w hen t her e i s avai l abl e an e as i erbas i s for th e d e c isio n (e .g ., q u a lifie d im m u n ity ) th a t w ill sa tisf a c to rily re so lv e th e c a se b e f o re th e c o u rt. In d e e d , w h e n c o u rts’ d o c k e ts a re c ro w d e d , a rig id “order of ba t t l e” m ake s l i t t l e adm i nis t rat i ve sense and ca n s om et i m es l ead t o a cons t i tut i onal deci s i on t h a ti s e f f e c t i v e l yi n s u l a t e d f

r o m r e v i e w. 12 5 S . C t. at60 0-01 (B rey er, J. , con curr i ng ). Just i ce S t even s, 5cons t i tut i o nal r i ghtw as vi ol at ed on the pr emi s es a lle g e d , a c o u rt m ig h t f in d it n e c e ss a ryto se t f o rth pr i nci pl es w hi ch w i l l become t he basi s fora hol di ng t hat a r i gh ti s cl earl y est abli shed. T his i s the p rocess f o r th e law ’s e lab o ra tio n f ro m c a se to c a se , an d it i s one r eas on forouri ns i s t i ng up on turni ng t o the exi s t ence or nonexi s t ence of a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtas th e f irst i n q u iry
. T h e law m ig h t b e d e p riv e d o f th is expl anat i on w er e a c our t s i m pl y t o s ki p ahea d t o the ques t i on w hetherthe l aw cl ear l yes t abl i s hed thatthe offi cer ’ s conduct w as unl aw ful i n t he ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. 533 U
. S. at201. U nl i ke the conc urr i ng J us t i ces i n B r os s eau , J us t i ce St evens 6 i n d i s s e n td i d n o tc l e a r l ya g r e e wi t h t he B r os s eau m aj or i t yt hat cour t s m us ts et t l e the cons t i tut i onal ques t i on bef or e t he qual i fi ed im m u n ity q u e s tio n . See 125 S. C t . at601. 28 di s s ent i ng, s eemed equal l yconvi nced thatthe cons ti tut i onal and q u a lif ie d im m u n ity in q u ir ie s a re s e p a ra te . S e e id
. at601. T al l y i ng the vo tes, I co n clud e th at w h il e som e Justices of the S u p rem e C o u rt do notl i ke the rul e, al l ni ne J us t i ces r ead Sauci er t o r e q u i r e t wo se p a ra te in q u ir ie s , a c o n s ti tu ti o n a l i n q u ir y a n d a q u a li f ie dim m u n ity i nqui r y , and atl eas tei ght J us t i ces bel i eve t he form erm us tpr ece de t he l at t er . A ccor di ngl y , I di s agre e w i t h t he maj or i t yt hat , i n t he

6 w ake of B r os s eau , “ [ t ] h e r e i s s o me d i s a g r e e me n ta s t o h o w Sauci er v . Ka tz , w hi ch set s for t h t he qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi nqui r y , s houl d be in te rp re te d .” T he maj or i t yappea r s t o att em p t t o avoi d confus i on byr el abel i ng t he s econd pr ong of the Sauci ert est . W hereas B r os s eau r efe r s t o t he s econd pr ong of the Sauci ert es tas addr es s i ng the “qual i fi ed i m m uni t y ” i s s ue, t he ma j or i t yr efe r s t o t hatpr ong as addr es s i ng “w hethert he r i ghtw as cl ear l yes t ab li sh ed. ” W hi l e I s har e the conc ern m ot i vat i ng t h i s s eemi ngl ycomm ons ens i cal ch an g e, I th ink itco n ce als th e b asic p rob lem w ith the m ajority ’sT he othercas es fr om the C o u r t s of A ppeal s ci t ed bythe 7 m aj ori ty d o s peak of Sauci er ’s tw o -ste p q u a lifie d im m u n ity inq ui r y , butt heydo notci t e B r os s eau t o s u p p o r tt hat c h a ra c te ri z a tio n . See Crai ghead v. Lee , 3 9 9 F .3 d 9 5 4 , 9 6 2 (8 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ) (co n s i der i ng B r os s eau ’ s i ns truct i ons r egar di ng Sauci er ’s se c o n d p ro n g ); B eard v. W hitm ore L akes Sc h. D ist . , 402 F. 3d 598, 6 0 7 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (s a m e ); Sa n J o se C h a rte r o

f th e He lls A n g e ls Motorcycl e C l ub v. C i t

y of San J

ose , 4 0 2 F .3 d 9 6 2 , 9 7 8 n .1 7 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s a m e ). See al s o Si m ki ns v. B ruce , ___ F. 3d ___, N o. 0 4 -30 7 2 , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 0 7 7 7 1 8 , at *1 (10 th C ir
. M ay9 , 2 0 0 5 ) (sam e). 29 appr oach. T hat is, the Supr eme C our ts eems c l ear l yt o vi ew t he s eco n d p rong of the Sauci ert es tas the es s ent i al “qual i fi ed im m u n ity ” in q u ir y – n o t as p a rt o f a lar g e r q u a lifie d im m u n ity inq u iry . See Sauc i er , 533 U
. S. at208 ( “[b] eca us e w e gr ant ed cert i orari onl yt o det erm i ne w hetherqual i fi ed i m m uni t yw as appr opr i at e, how ever , and becaus e of t he l i m i t s i m pos ed on us by t he ques t i ons on w h ich w e gra nt ed r evi ew , w e w i l l as s um e a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on coul d have occurr ed on t he fact s al l eged .

. . . ”)
. W e s houl d do t he s ame. U nfor tunat el y , i n m y vi ew t he m aj or i t y compounds i t s err or in d esc ri b ing the n ature o f o u r i n q u iry b y h o lding that the o ff icers i n t hi s cas e w er e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e ther e w as n o c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . See M aj
. O p. at2 ( “[W ] e conc l ude that t her e w as no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. T her efor e, w e hol d t hatt he off i cers w ere ent i t l ed to qua l i fi ed im m un i t ya n d w e w i l l rever se d e n i a l o f t h e o f f i c e r s ’ mo t i o n f

o rs u mma r yj u d g me n t . ” ) To my k n o w le d g e , o n ly o n e o f o u r s is te r c ir c u its h a s g o n e th is f a r. See R i verdale Mi l l

s C orp. v. P i m

pa re , 392 F. 3d 55, 65 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hatgovernm entagent s w er e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e the pl ai nt i ff fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal v io latio n u n d e r S a u c ier ’s f irst p ro n g )
. B yc o n tra st, th e E lev e n th

7 C i r cui ts peaks nei t herof the qual i fi ed im m uni t yi nqui r yas c o n s is tin g o f tw o s te p s , s ee E vans v. St ephens , ___ F. 3d ___, N o. 02- 16424, 2005 W L 1076603, at *4 ( 11t h C i r . M ay 9, 2005 ) ( enB u t se e H a rr is v . C o w e ta C o u n ty , ___ F. 3d

_ _ _ , N o . 03- 8 15094 , 2 0 0 5 W L 901889, at*2 ( 11t h C i r . A pr . 20, 2005) ( des cr i bi ng t w o- s t ep Sauci ert es tas pl ai nt i ff’ s bur den t o s how that q u ali fied im m u n ityis no t app rop ri ate). S e e a lso M

y e rs v . R e dw o o d

C ity , 4 0 0 F .3 d 7 6 5 , 7 7 0 (9 th 9 C i r . 2005) ( “A l t hough w e conc l ude that th e D efe ndant s di d not vi o l a t e t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s o f t h e Pl a i n t i f f s , g i v e n t he compl exi t yof the ques t i on, w e w i l l addr es s t he eas i erques t i on of q u ali fied im m u n ityas w ell
. ”). 30 banc ) , norhol ds t hatfai l ur e t o es t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on

8 tr ig g e rs q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity. S e e P u rc e ll v. T o o m b s C o u n ty , 400 F. 3d 1313, 1324 ( 11t h C ir
. 2 0 0 5) ( E dm onds on, C
. J . )
. A s t he 9 m a jo rity ’s te rm in o lo g ya n d h o ld in g se e m to m e in c o n so n a n t w ith B r os s eau , I bel i eve the El eventh C i r cui templo y s the bett er a p p ro a c h
. U lti m a tely , th e m a

jo rity a p p a re n tly f

e e ls c o m p e lled to h o ld t hatthe o ffi cer s have qua l i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e “thatw as t he b a sis f o r th is in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l.” In o th e r w o rd s, th e m a jo rity s e e m s t o b e l i e v e t h a tw h a ta r r i v e d i n a “ q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y” e n v e l o p e c a n n o tb e r e tu r n e d i n a “ f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m” e n v e lo p e . I d is a g re e w ith th e m a jo ri ty f o r t w o re a s o n s . F irst, th e p u rp o se o f

th e q u a lifie d im m u n ityd o c trin e is to “perm i t i ns ubs t ant i al l aw s ui t s t o be qui ckl yt erm i nat ed, ” H ar l ow v. F itzg e ra ld , 457 U
. S. 800, 814 ( 1982) , i
. e. , t o al l ow t he “di s m i s s al of i ns ubs tant i al l aw s ui t s w i t houtt r i al
. ” Id
. I n ot herw or ds , t he esse n tia l rea so n w e a re p erm itted to ex erc ise i n terl o cu tory juri sd ict ion w h en q u ali f ie d im m u n ityis de n ied b ya d istri ct co u rt i s b roadl y t o determ i ne w hether dis m i ssal i s ap propri at e. “U nles s t he p l ai nti ff’s al l egati on s sta te a c la im o f v io la ti o n o f

c lea rly es t abl i s hed l aw , ” th e C o ur thas expl ai ned, a def endantpl eadi ng q u a l i f i e d i mmun i t yi s e n t i t l e d t o d i s mi s s a l b e f o r e t he comm ence m entof di s covery . ” Mitch e ll v. Fo rs y th , 472 U
. S. 511, 5 2 6 (1 9 8 5 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h u s, “ [ a ] c o u rt e v a lu a tin g a c laim31 of qual i f i ed i m m uni t ym us tfi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff ha s a lle g e d a d e

p riv a tio n o

f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t a t a ll , and i f s o, pr ocee d t o det erm i ne w hether t hat r i ght w as cl ear l y es t abl i s hed at t he t i m e of the vi ol at i on. ” W i l s on v. Layne , 526 U
. S. 603, 609 ( 1999) ( emphasi s added; ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. I n m yvi ew , w her e no s uch cl ai m i s s t at ed, di s m i s s al on t hatgr ound – r atherthan on the gr ound t hatt he off

i ci al s ar e i m m une – i s appr opr i at e. Second, t he maj or i ty ’ s r e a s oni ng contr avene s the purpos e of t he tw o- s t ep Sauci erin q u ir y . A s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , Sauci er ’ s “or der of batt l e” i s des i gned t o for ce cour t s t o es t abl i s h pr ece denton t he cont our s of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s to pr ovi de gui dance forl aw e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e rs . See 5 3 3 U .S . at 2 0 1 , 2 0 7 . A p p ly in g th is appr oach, a courtm ayfi nd t h at an off i ci al ’ s al l eged c onductw as cons t i tut i onal lyp erm i s s i bl e orth a t th e c o n d u c t, w h ile cons t i tut i onal l yi mpe rmi s s i b l e, di d notcr os s a “c l ear l yes t abl i s hed” l i ne. R efe r r i ng t o bot h of thes e s cena r i os as es t abl i s hi ng “qual i fi ed im m u n ity ” se n d s a c o n f u sin g sig n a l to law e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f icia ls co n ce rnin g w h at a cti o n s they m ayo r m ayn o t t ak e. T h e m ajority ’s r eas oni ng t h u s i r oni cal l yhas the pot ent i al t o frus t r at e the d e v e l o p m e n to f

“ c l e a r l y e s t a b lis h e d ” l a w , th e v e r y r ais on d’ etr e for Sauci er ’s tw o -s te p te s t. In vi ew of the for egoi ng, I bel i eve the pr operanal yt i cal c o u r s e i n t h i s c a s e wou l d b e f i r s t t o c o n s i d e r whe t h er t he defe ndant s vi ol at ed the C ons t i tut i on. B eca us e w e answ ert hat ques t i on i n t he nega t i ve, M s . W r i ghtl acks a ca us e of act i on. T hat d et erm i nati on shou l d end our i nq uiry , and w e shou l d declin e to r eac h t he “s econd, qual i fi ed i m m uni t yques t i on. ” B r os s eau , 12 5 S. C t . at597.