Opinion ID: 2812075
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the legal contours of the right in

Text: question were sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would have understood that what he [or she] was doing violated the right, and (b) whether in the particular factual context of the case, a reasonable officer would have understood that his [or her] conduct violated the right. Mlodzinski v. Lewis, 648 F.3d 24, 32-33 (1st Cir. 2011). Notably, due to a somewhat recent change in the law, we may address these issues in any order. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). As discussed above, there are genuine disputes over material facts which prevent us from evaluating whether Rosado -26- violated Fernández's rights. Those same disputed facts also prevent us from evaluating the qualified immunity question. Even assuming probable cause for Fernández's arrest was lacking, thus satisfying the first requirement for qualified immunity, we would then look to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. There is little question that it is clearly established law that an individual cannot be arrested absent probable cause. See, e.g., Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 630 (2003) (per curiam); United States v. Mercedes-De La Cruz, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 3378255, at  (1st Cir. May 26, 2015). However, whether or not a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would have understood that Rosado's actions violated this right is a factintensive question. It involves understanding what Rosado knew as she approached the gate and exactly what transpired upon Fernández opening it. These are questions for a factfinder, and until they are answered, we are unable to determine, as a matter of law, whether Rosado's conduct was 'so deficient that no reasonable officer could have made the same choice[] under the circumstances.' Estate of Bennett, 548 F.3d at 168 (quoting Napier v. Windham, 187 F.3d 177, 183 (1st Cir. 1999)); see also Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 272. Accordingly, the district court's entry of judgment against Rosado on Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment unconstitutional arrest claim must be reversed and remanded for trial. -27-