Anderson v. Creighton
Citation and Court
483 U.S. 635 (1987) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
FBI agent Russell Anderson conducted a warrantless search of the Creighton family’s home, believing a bank robbery suspect was hiding there. The search was based on information that may not have amounted to probable cause. The Creightons sued Anderson for damages under Bivens, alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. Anderson claimed qualified immunity.
Issue
Does an officer have qualified immunity from a civil damages claim when he conducted a warrantless search of a home, if a reasonable officer could have believed the search was lawful in light of the clearly established law at the time?
Holding
Yes; an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established in a sufficiently particularized sense—i.e., a reasonable officer in his position could not have believed his conduct was lawful.
Rule / Doctrine
Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. The “clearly established” inquiry must be conducted at a high level of specificity—not whether general Fourth Amendment rights are established, but whether the specific conduct at issue was clearly prohibited.
Significance
Anderson v. Creighton is essential to the doctrine of qualified immunity in Fourth Amendment contexts, narrowing the circumstances under which officers face personal liability. It requires courts to frame the “clearly established” question specifically, which in practice gives officers considerable latitude and makes civil suits against individual officers for constitutional violations difficult to sustain.