Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity where the law was not clearly established that a charge of making a false statement could be predicated upon an omission

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Canton police officers investigated a complaint of alleged sexual misconduct wherein the complainant provided various versions of the incident and, after making a formal written statement, later admitted that her statement was not true in that she knowingly omitted that she did not say “no,” and that she performed oral sex on her boss in the absence of any threat or use of physical force. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Court of Appeals improperly found that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity where the Court itself acknowledged that the law was not clearly established that a charge of making a false statement pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-157b could be predicated upon an omission? 2. Whether the Court of Appeals improperly denied qualified immunity as to the plaintiffs § 1983 malicious prosecution claim in contravention of the Court’s own precedent in Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018) and Thompson v Clark, 794 Fed. Appx. 140, 141-42 (2d Cir. 2020), cert. granted in part, 141 S. Ct. 1682 (2021), which require that a plaintiff establish that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates ... innocence,” in order to establish a favorable termination, and where the prosecutor affirmed that the nolle of charges was based upon procedural grounds, namely ii plaintiffs satisfaction of a specified condition for the nolle?