Hernandez v. Mesa
Docket: No. 12-50217
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; March 20, 2018; Federal Appellate Court
Qualified immunity protects Agent Mesa from civil liability despite the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the Fourth Amendment protections for Hernández, as established by Supreme Court precedents. Although the plaintiffs assert that Hernández was entitled to these protections based on the context of Boumediene v. Bush and the circumstances of the incident, the court determined that the extraterritorial application of such protections was not clearly established at the time of Mesa's actions. The doctrine of qualified immunity requires that constitutional rights must be clearly established for officials to be held liable, as clarified in Davis v. Scherer. The plaintiffs' assertion that Mesa's conduct was obviously unlawful does not negate his qualified immunity because the relevant rights were not clearly defined at the time of the incident. Consequently, the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims is affirmed. The concurring opinion also notes disagreement with the majority’s treatment of the Fifth Amendment claims but focuses primarily on the issue of Bivens remedy availability.