Did the First Circuit err in denying qualified immunity to Petitioners where neither this Court nor the First Circuit had ever before recognized the state-created danger doctrine, the First Circuit had previously held that use of necessary law enforcement tools could not provide the requisite affirmative act for application of the doctrine, there is a split among the circuits regarding both the existence and necessary elements of the doctrine, and in no identified case did a court apply the state-created danger doctrine in sufficiently analogous factual circumstances to have put Petitioners on notice that they assumed a constitutional duty to protect by leaving a voicemail for a suspect or that such an act was so egregious as to "shock the conscience?"

Did the First Circuit err in denying qualified immunity to Petitioners?