Lena Davenport v. Borough of Homestead, Pennsylvania, et al.

This Court’s decisions have firmly established that the law governing the role of a court at summary judgment is to consider all material facts offered by the non-movant and to view them in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and to consider only those facts only which an official claiming qualified immunity knew or could have known in determining whether a search or seizure was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, the Third Circuit in this case, misapplied the law by failing to consider all the material facts offered by the non-movant, thereby negating any chance that those facts could be viewed in any light, let alone a favorable one at summary judgment. And the Third Circuit in this case erred by attributing knowledge of facts to a government official claiming qualified immunity beyond those which were known by him in evaluating the objective reasonableness of his actions under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the questions presented are: Whether courts deciding claims of qualified immunity in Fourth Amendment cases at summary judgment may disregard material facts offered on behalf of the non-movants which, when viewed in a light most favorable to them, demonstrate genuine issues of material facts exist as to the reasonableness of a government official’s conduct, Whether courts deciding claims of qualified immunity in Fourth Amendment cases at summary judgment, may consider facts beyond