Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity. Courts have long recognized a “good faith” or qualified immunity “for police conduct that, although unlawful, was not unreasonable under the circumstances.” Bibbo v. Mulhern, 621 F.Supp. 1018, 1026 (D.Mass.1985). The Supreme Court devised an objective test for qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), concluding that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. See also Anderson v. Creighton, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the Supreme Court indicated that
holding that government officials are provided with qualified immunity so long as their actions could have been reasonably thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated 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 holding officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes of law holding that a plaintiff may present unsubstantiated factual allegations on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint to show that the complaint should not have been dismissed holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity