Changes

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] established that the "good faith" defense has both an "objective" and a "subjective" aspect.  

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] established that the "good faith" defense has both an "objective" and a "subjective" aspect.  

The objective element involves a presumptive knowledge of and respect for "basic, unquestioned constitutional rights."  ''[[Wood v. Strickland]]'', 420 U.S. 308, 322 (1975).   

The objective element involves a presumptive knowledge of and respect for "basic, unquestioned constitutional rights."  ''Wood v. Strickland'', 420 U.S. 308, 322 (1975).   

The subjective component refers to "permissible intentions."  ''Id.''

The subjective component refers to "permissible intentions."  ''Id.''

Typically the [[Supreme Court]] has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, it has held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the [[constitutional right]]s of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury ...." ''Id''. (emphasis added).

Typically the [[Supreme Court]] has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, it has held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the [[U.S. Constitution|constitutional]] rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury ...." ''Id''. (emphasis added).

The "objective" standard for qualified immunity in the [[United States]] departs from the tradition of [[English]] [[common law]], which used a subjective standard based on [[malice]].  As [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]] wrote in ''[[Anderson v. Creighton]]'', 483 U.S. 635 (1987):

The "objective" standard for qualified immunity in the [[United States]] departs from the tradition of [[English]] [[common law]], which used a subjective standard based on [[malice]].  As [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]] wrote in ''[[Anderson v. Creighton]]'', 483 U.S. 635 (1987):