Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Federal Courts
483 U.S. 635 (1987)
Updated
Federal Courtsclearly established lawqualified immunityFourth AmendmentBivensobjective legal reasonablenessparticularized rightwarrantless search
Facts
FBI agent Russell Anderson participated in a warrantless search of the Creighton family home on November 11, 1983, because he believed a suspected bank robber, Vadaain Dixon, might be found there. Dixon was not present. The Creightons sued Anderson for money damages under the Fourth Amendment. Anderson sought dismissal or summary judgment based on qualified immunity before discovery occurred.
Issue
May a federal law enforcement officer who participated in a search that violated the Fourth Amendment nevertheless be personally liable for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed the search complied with the Fourth Amendment? More specifically, is clearly established law defined at a general level, or must it be particularized to the circumstances confronting the officer?
Rule
For qualified immunity, the allegedly violated right must be clearly established in a particularized sense: the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. An officer is immune from damages if, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers, a reasonable officer could have believed the warrantless search was lawful; the unlawfulness need not have been previously decided in identical facts, but it must have been apparent under pre-existing law.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, federal agent Lena Ortiz joins a warrantless search of a duplex while pursuing a fraud suspect. The occupants sue for damages, alleging a violation of their clearly established right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Which is the strongest argument for Agent Ortiz's qualified-immunity defense?
Explanation. Qualified immunity does not turn on abstract formulations like a general right to be free from unreasonable searches. The right must be identified in a more particularized sense, and the question is whether a reasonable officer could have believed the search lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed. The majority rejected both automatic liability for Fourth Amendment violations and a subjective good-faith test, and it also said identical precedent is unnecessary so long as unlawfulness would have been apparent under pre-existing law. (Derived from Anderson v. Creighton (1987).)