Sylvia Daniel v. Earl Taylor, Keith Dunkel, Bernadette Hernandez, Fred Woodward, Ernest Dorling and Tommy Pritchard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to be entitled to qualified immunity, defendants need only show that it is an unsettled question of law whether plaintiff had a right not to be detained without probable cause
• suggesting that one could argue both that detention at one's business adds only minimally and that it adds significantly to the stigma of the search
• suggesting that one could argue both that detention at one’s business adds only minimally and that it adds significantly to the stigma of the search
• recognizing that Summers,' and even the Supreme Court’s dicta therein that “possibly a prolonged detention ... might lead to a different conclusion in an unusual case” did not clearly establish the law regarding the length of the detention of an occupant during a permissible search
• finding defendant agents entitled to qualified immunity where law was uncertain as to permissible length of detention and applicability of Summers to searches for evidence rather than contraband
• finding defendant agents entitled to qualified immunity where law was uncertain as to permissible length of detention and applicability of Summers to searches for evidence rather than contraband

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).