the defense of qualified immunity). 126 . See Pierce v. Smith, 111 F.3d at 871-72; Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 530 (5th Cir.1996); Hassan v. Lubbock Independent School District, 55 F.3d 1075, 1078 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied;-U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 532, 133 L.Ed.2d 438 (1995); Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d at 310; White v. Taylor, 959 F.2d at 544: "If reasonable public officials could differ on the lawfulness of the defendant's actions, the defendant is entitled to immunity.”; Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, Texas, 950 F.2d at 279-80; Streetman v. Jordan, 918 F.2d at 556; Mouille v. City of Live Oak, 918 F.2d at 552-53; and Hopkins v. Stice, 916 F.2d 1029, 1030-31 (5 th Cir.1990). See also Brawner v. City of Richardson, Texas, 855 F.2d 187, 192 (5th Cir.1988), (<HOLDING>); and Gunaca v. State of Texas, 65 F.3d 467,
holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right 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 the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he or she is doing violates that right holding that for purposes of the second question the right must have been clearly established in a particularized sense such that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right