Officer Ha contends that she bears no liability for her role in Ms. Chen’s detention because, as a police officer merely complying with a request by another office for assistance with an investigation, she is entitled to qualified immunity. See MSJ at 20. The court of appeals has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity as follows: The Supreme Court has held that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); see also Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494,
holding that qualified immunity applies if either a the defendants action did not violate clearly established law or b it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law internal quotation marks omitted holding that questions of reasonableness depend upon the facts and circumstances  the total atmosphere of the case citation omitted  which must be viewed in the light of established fourth amendment principles holding that qualified immunity turns upon the objective legal reasonableness of the officers action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted holding that qualified immunity analysis begins with the court asking whether the plaintiffs allegations if true establish a constitutional violation internal quotation marks omitted