Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

748 chars

Appellants also argue that the law regarding their conduct
was not clearly established. Though we do “not require a
case directly on point for a right to be clearly established,
existing precedent must have placed the statutory or
constitutional question beyond debate.” Kisela v. Hughes,
138 S. Ct. 1148, 1148, 1152 (2018) (per curiam) (quoting
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam)).
“[T]he focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that [the
officer’s] conduct was unlawful.” Id. (quoting Brosseau v.
Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)). Though we
defer to the jury’s reasonable view of the facts, “the ‘clearly
established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can
decide.” Morales, 873 F.3d at 821.

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text