Use of Force & Arrest · U.S. Supreme Court, 2001

Saucier v. Katz

Saucier v. Katz is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This page summarizes key points and works through practice questions for Texas peace officer exam preparation.

Key points

  • Constitutional violation
  • Clearly established right at time of conduct
  • Both must be shown to overcome qualified immunity

Learn more about this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

Under federal qualified immunity doctrine (Saucier v. Katz / Pearson v. Callahan), an officer is immune from civil suit for use of force unless:

  1. The officer is rude
  2. (1) The officer's conduct violates a constitutional right; AND (2) the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the conduct (such that a reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful) Correct
  3. The officer was off-duty
  4. Anyone files a complaint
Why: Qualified immunity bars §1983 claims unless plaintiffs prove (1) a constitutional violation AND (2) that the right was clearly established at the time. Courts may decide either prong first (Pearson).
Statute: Saucier v. Katz; Pearson v. Callahan