Does a police officer's observation of an undisputed legal act provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a traffic violation or crime, and are law enforcement officers entitled to qualified immunity without a truthful justification?

1. Does a police officer observing an undisputed legal act(s) or something that is not illegal, without more, provide probable cause or a reasonable individualized, particularized suspicion that the person is committing or has committed, or will eminently commit a traffic violation or crime? 2. Are officials or law enforcement officers covered by or entitled to a defense of Qualified Immunity whether or not they provide a truthful justification for the act or an “after-the-fact ” justification? 3. Is a Roseboro vs. Garrison or Rule 12/56 notice required for Pro Se litigants at the Summary Judgment stage of a case? Page [ii]