Opinion ID: 3064997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Analytical Methodology

Text: To determine whether a public official is protected by qualified immunity, the Supreme Court required until recently that we first consider whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and if so, then whether that right was clearly established at the time of the event in question. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. Only after deciding the first step were we authorized to go to the second step. Under the second step, to attach liability “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). This framework means that “the right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established.” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 (1999). In other words, the second-step question in this case is, was the law such that it should have been clear to Detective Rogers that he was required in the situation he confronted to give predeprivation and post-deprivation notice to an absent father. See id.