Conn v. Gabbert

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 19:28, January 13, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

In Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity "must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the nearly unanimous Court. He considered "whether a prosecutor violates an attorney's Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession when the prosecutor causes the attorney to be searched at the same time his client is testifying before a grand jury" and held "that such conduct by a prosecutor does not violate an attorney's Fourteenth Amendment right to practice his profession."