Cir.2011) (“[the Circuit has] never required a prior case on all fours prohibiting that particular manifestation of unconstitutional conduct to find a right clearly established”) (internal quotation omitted). Where defendants lack a “legitimate question” regarding whether or not their actions would violate a constitutional right, qualified immunity must be denied. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 658, 107 S.Ct. 3034 (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 535, n. 12, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2820, n. 12, 86 L.Ed.2d 411, 431, n. 12 (1985)). This. Court finds that, as a matter of law, none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs proved at trial that Defendants knowingly violated the law. See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Officers have been on notice since at least
holding that the driver of an emergency vehicle is not entitled to receive qualified public official immunity because the normal operation of a vehicle including those on an emergency mission is not ordinarily a discretionary act for which immunity will shield the driver from liability for negligence holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that qualified immunity is designed to shield from liability all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law  holding that one of the principal purposes of the qualified immunity doctrine is to shield officers not only from liability but also from defending against a lawsuit holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional