John Paul Stevens

“ This case presents two separate questions: (1) whether the four circumstances identified in the Court of Appeals' unpublished opinion established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the seizure violated respondents’ Fourth Amendment rights, see ante, at 612; (2) whether the officers were nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established. ”

“ As Judge Cowen's discussion of Franklin demonstrates, that case surely does not clearly establish the unconstitutionality of the officers' conduct. [1] Consequently, regardless of the proper answer to the constitutional question, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. ”