that “[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). According to Soldal, in determining whether a government seizure violates the Fourth Amendment, the seizure must be examined for its overall reasonableness. See Soldal, 113 S.Ct. at 549 (“ ‘reasonableness is still the ultimate standard’ under the Fourth Amendment”) (citations omitted). The analysis must be based upon a careful balancing of governmental and private interests. See id. C. Individual Officers ’ Liability 1. Clemens and Freas As noted above, the actions of officers Clemens and Freas on August 26, 1995 were not reasonable, and no reasonable jury could find otherwise. See supra (<HOLDING>). While we recognize that there is a legitimate
holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity holding that where defendant claiming qualified immunity relies on facts that are in dispute qualified immunity cannot be granted holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes of law holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity