distance outside of Ponchatoula’s city limits (on a stretch of road Officer McGary had always been given authority to patrol because curves in the road caused only small portions to leave city limits). Thom, however, did not raise this argument in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, so the argument is waived. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225, 227; see also Hensley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 290 Fed.Appx. 742, 743-44 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Moreover, even if the argument were not waived, Thom has not cited any authority clearly establishing that a stop or arrest under the circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, he has failed to show that he could, in any event, satisfy the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Porter, 659 F.3d at 445
holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established holding that government officials receive qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a constitutional right and the law to this effect was clearly established under thenexisting law such that a reasonable official would have known that his behavior was unlawful recognizing that qualified immunity shields officials unless the plaintiff demonstrates the defendant violated a constitutional right that was clearly established