In Saucier v. Katz (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that deciding whether an officer is eligible for qualified immunity depends not merely on whether an officer's actions were objectively reasonable,

Question

but also on whether the officer might have reasonably believed that his actions were reasonable. Was a reasonable officer "on notice" that his particular use of force would be unlawful? Or could he have reasonably believed that his actions were legal? This test recognizes that there may be behavior that is objectively unreasonable but that nonetheless an officer might have reasonably believed was reasonable. If so, then the officer should be entitled to qualified immunity for his behavior. If VPO Jones had "fair notice" that a bear hug and take-down were unlawful, and if there is a factual disagreement over whether he used excessive force, then the case should go to trial. The legal standard in Alaska statutes—that a police officer making an arrest may not use any restraint that is not necessary and proper for the arrest or detention of a person—is too general to give officers notice that specific actions taken in specific circumstances may or may not be reasonable. There is only one federal case that suggests that a bear hug and take-down may be reasonable, which is not sufficient to establish clear law that says that a bear hug and a take-down are excessive uses of force when applied to an intoxicated and assaultive arrestee. However, if Jones's use of a bear hug was so egregious, so excessive, that he should have known it was unlawful, then the nature of the act gave sufficient warning that a bear hug and a take-down were excessive means to restrain someone. One should not let the lack of explicit law in an area be a substitute for the reasonable officer's common sense. Although the events in this case resulted in tragedy, Jones's conduct was not shocking. He did not do anything we can now, on reflection, say that he should have known at the time was excessive and unlawful. Cognizant of the reality that officers must often make quick judgments which might have unanticipated consequences, we must resist the urge to second guess those actions when things turn out badly. Jones, in acting as he did, could have reasonably believed that his actions were not excessive.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Jones is entitled to immunity.