Guirlaine O'Rourke v. Martin Trujillo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the following of one officer’s unconstitutional behavior does not relieve another officer of “his responsibility to decide for himself whether to violate clearly established constitutional rights”
• holding that other officers’ “unconstitutional behavior did not relieve” defendant probation officer “of his responsibility to decide for himself whether to violate clearly established constitutional rights by intruding into the office without a warrant or exigent circumstances”
• turning, in the discretionary authority inquiry, to whether defendant’s activity “is a part of his job-related powers and responsibilities”
• The plain view doctrine also makes clear that “officers have the right to make observations from any place where they have the right to be.”
• “Hayes did not have a search warrant, and can point to no exigency justifying his search. Consequently, even if a factually similar case did not exist, his actions would still have violated rights that are clearly established under these general statements of principle.”
• “since World War II, the ‘just following orders’ defense has 28 not occupied a respected position in our jurisprudence, and officers 1 in such cases may be held liable under § 1983 if there is a reason why any of them should question the validity of that order”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).