Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

SAUCIER v. KATZ

United States Supreme Court No. 99-1977

---

QUESTION PRESENTED: 1) Is the rule of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) sufficiently particularized to be the relevant "clearly established" standard for determining qualified immunity in excessive force cases?

2) Must any officer who violates the Graham standard be also deemd to have violated a clearly established right for the purposes of qualified immunity?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: Date not available

---

INTRODUCTION

Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Part I

I. Harlow's objective standard advances it policy rationale by protecting officials from liability due to the retroactive imposition of new standards

Part II

II. The Ninth Circuit's decision incorrectly foreclosed the qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases

A. Eliminating the defense
B. Too abstract
C. The reasonableness trap

Part III - Conclusion

III. A reasonable officer could believe that the use of force alleged in this case was lawful in light of clearly established law

IV. If the Court does adopt the Ninth Circuit's two-part test, adjustments are necessary to maintain the current level of qualified immunity protection

Conclusion