Daniel Cameron Wilkey, et al. v. William Eugene Klaver

Petitioners Wilkey and McRae are police deputies who allegedly violated Respondent Klaver’s Fourth Amendment rights by unnecessarily extending a traffic stop. The district court denied the Deputies’ motion for summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense. The following questions are presented:

1. This Court has repeatedly instructed the lower courts that in determining whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity prior decisions must have defined the right with a high degree of specificity. Here, the Sixth Circuit identified the controlling rule to be that officers “may not detain a driver for longer than necessary to complete a traffic stop simply because they want to investigate other crimes.” Did the Sixth Circuit define the right at too high a level of generality?

2. As part of a lawful traffic stop, Deputies Wilkey and McRae observed that Klaver had unlawfully tinted windows, unlawfully placed a sticker on his license plate, was visibly shaking, refused to explain why he was shaking, and was generally uncooperative. In denying qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit did not cite a case with comparable facts. Did the Sixth Circuit err in holding that