The following excerpt is from A.D. v. Cal. Highway Patro, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05483-SI, No. 09-16460, No. 09-17635 (9th Cir. 2013):
To be clearly established, the foregoing law only must have been "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [was] doing violate[d] [a constitutional] right." Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002). Reasonableness is not a demanding standard. The "state of the law" was sufficiently clear if it gave "fair warning" to an officer that his conduct was unconstitutional. Id. at 741.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.