Whether qualified immunity absolves a defendant of § 1983 liability, despite knowledge of clearly established law, unless the plaintiff shows the violation factually unreasonable?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Though unstated in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the common law, qualified immunity doctrine sets forth a two-prong test for claims of qualified immunity: (1) whether the official violated a person’s constitutional right, and (ii) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. The first asks if the conduct was reasonable under the facts; the second asks if the conduct violated clearly established law. Though the Court has warned these inquiries are distinct, some courts bifurcate the second prong to again ask if the conduct was unreasonable, thus deciding factual reasonableness in the second prong that should be considered only in the first and inviting immunity to defendants who have knowledge of the law at the time but violate it, as long as their violation is found to have been factually reasonable. Also unclear is whether a determination of whether the law was “clearly established” is properly made as to each item of notice of the law in isolation, or under the totality of notice at the time. Two questions arise: A. Whether qualified immunity absolves a defendant of § 1983 liability, despite knowledge of clearly established law, unless the plaintiff shows the violation factually unreasonable? B. Whether determining if the law was clearly established under qualified immunity doctrine views each item of notice in isolation or must consider the totality of notice at the time?