constitutional rights. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808; Maxwell v. Cnty. of San Diego, 697 F.3d 941, 947 (9th Cir.2012); Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915. If the answer to that question is “no,” we stop: without a violation, there is no basis for the plaintiffs’ lawsuit to proceed. Id. If the answer to our first question is “yes,” then for the second step, we call on a familiar character, the hypothetical “reasonable officer.” The reasonable officer avoids committing acts that have been clearly established as unconstitutional — for example, handcuffing a prisoner to a fence for a long period of time — as well as other, similar acts, like handcuffing a prisoner not to a fence, but instead to a hitching post. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739-43, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 442 (9th
holding that an act  there handcuffing a shirtless inmate to a hitching post in the sun for seven hours  may be clearly established as unconstitutional even if there is no case addressing it specifically as long as existing law provides fair warning that the act is unconstitutional holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established holding that the trial courts classification of property will not be disturbed as long as there is competent evidence to support that determination holding it is more in keeping with the narrow scope of preemption to allow state law to require the addition of warnings so long as there has been no specific fda determination as to the sufficiency of the scientific evidence to support a particular warning