despite the absence of a case applying established principles to the same facts, reasonable officials in defendants’ position at-the relevant time could have believed, in light of what was decided in case law, that their conduct would be unlawful.” Good v. Dauphin County Social Services, 891 F.2d 1087, 1092 (3d Cir.1989). Officials are entitled to qualified immunity if they. could have believed their acts were legal, even if officials of reasonable competence could disagree. Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13, 880 F.Supp. 319, 327 (E.D.Pa.1994). Consequently, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law.” Madley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). Defendants argue that th (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 828, 108 S.Ct. 97, 98
holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding standards for interviewing children that had allegedly been sexually abused not clearly established and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established