Opinion ID: 3064997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Saucier’s Second Prong

Text: [8] This inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Sau10820 MUELLER v. ROGERS cier, 533 U.S. at 201. See also Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 198. Thus, viewing here the facts in the light most favorable to the Muellers, and assuming without deciding that Eric Mueller in the circumstances presented, had constitutional rights to both pre- and post-deprivation notice which were not honored, we determine whether those rights were clearly established. Specifically, was it clearly established that Detective Rogers had to give pre-deprivation notice not only to the parent in the hospital present with and exercising judgment with respect to her child’s medical situation, but also to a parent absent from the scene of his decision? Further, was it clearly established that Eric Mueller had a constitutional right to post-deprivation notice, which Detective Rogers had the responsibility to deliver?