Opinion ID: 721048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The officers enjoy qualified immunity.

Text: 8 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). To be clearly established, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). 9 The right allegedly violated is the right of a bounty hunter to carry a loaded firearm while surveilling a fugitive's residence. California Penal Code § 12031(k) states: Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act of making or attempting to make a lawful arrest. At issue is whether surveilling a fugitive's residence constitutes attempting to make a lawful arrest. 10 At the time of Porter's arrest, this issue was not clearly established. The only cases interpreting § 12031(k) dealt with bounty hunters in hot pursuit of a fugitive. See, e.g., People v. Piorkowski, 115 Cal.Rptr. 830, 835 (Ct.App.1974) (holding that § 12031(k), previously codified as § 12031(i), does not authorize defendant to negligently brandish a weapon in arresting a boy who had stolen a wallet); People v. Walker, 108 Cal.Rptr. 548, 554 (Ct.App.1973) (noting that defendant would have the right to carry a firearm if he had the right to arrest a person who had just committed a burglary). No cases had decided whether surveilling a fugitive's residence constituted an attempt to arrest. For example, the attempt to arrest might not begin until the fugitive exists his residence. Without any case deciding this issue, we cannot say that the parameters of § 12031(k) were clearly established. 11 Porter's criminal acquittal is not preclusive, because his criminal trial involved a different issue. The issue in the criminal trial was whether Porter's actions fit within the § 12031(k) exception. Here, the issue is whether the law was clearly established that Porter's actions fit within the § 12031(k) exception. The judge in the criminal trial had no reason to reach the latter issue. 12