Julie Peffer, et vir v. Mike Stephens

I. The Opinion addresses a question of first impression as to presumptions involving the search of a dwelling in a published opinion with no warning to the parties, with no opportunity to brief the issue and no oral argument. The analysis behind the presumption is flawed and cases leading up to this conclusion are admittedly murky. Accordingly, the issue should have been addressed after notice to the parties, briefing on the specific issue, and oral argument. II. In deciding whether the law was clearly established concerning Defendant’s immunity, the Opinion decides whether Plaintiff’s conduct could have violated certain state laws and finds a lack of clear precedent. This is an incorrect use of the “clearly established law” requirement for qualified immunity and is inconsistent with established precedent from this Court.