Boyer

dissenting.

The dispositive issue in this case is whether Boyer’s rights were “clearly established” under Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). Because any violation that occurred here would not have been clear to an objectively reasonable officer, see Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), I dissent and would reverse the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on the issue of qualified immunity.

Broad Fourth Amendment dictates do not clearly establish rights for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis; rather, “the legal rule in question must be defined in a more specific manner.” Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1315, 1319 (9th Cir.1995); see also Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”); Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 (“The operation of this standard ... depends substantially upon the level of generality at which the relevant ‘legal rule’ is to be identified.”). The majority highlights the general rule that “an…

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant officers appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We agree with the district court that the officers may have possessed reasonable suspicion to detain Boyer initially, see United, States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), and were reasonably justified in handcuffing him and detaining him in the patrol car, see United States v. Ricardo D., 912 F.2d 337, 340 (9th Cir.1990).

We also conclude that the officers’ continuing detention of Boyer violated Boyer’s constitutional rights. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). Specifically, the jury could have found the officers had detained Boyer beyond the time necessary to confirm or dispel the officers’ suspicions. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 , 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). Moreover, the constitutional violation was clearly established because Royer’s application is apparent when we construe the evidence in Boyer’s favor. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002). Thus, the district court…