◆ SpookStack

60 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 The allegations of plaintiffs in this case clearly com- plain of official misconduct which is outside the ambit of the doctrine of qualified immunity. If plaintiffs prove their case against the defendants, the doctrine of qualified immunity will not thwart recovery oi damages. The rights which plaintiffs contend that defendants have violated are clearly established. Plaintiffs have presented evidence which could suggest that the defendants—both as part of a conspiracy and individually—violated, among others, their clearly es- tablished First,2? Fourth,*4 and Fourteenth Amendment rights. And defendants have not shown as a matter of law that they should not have known either that these rights existed or that their alleged conduct violated them. See Procunier, supra, 434 U.S. at 562. Thus, we hold that the question whether defendants reasonably - believed that ‘their conduct did not violate a constitu- tional right, given the evidence presented at trial, should have been submitted to the jury.* In summary, Hanrahan’s decision to file criminal charges against the survivors, his presentation of evidence to the grand jury, and his eventual decision to drop these charges, are absolutely immune from civil 38 The suppression of plaintiffs’ political speech through harassment, intimidation, and subversion—part of plain- tiffs’ case against the defendants—would constitute violation of a clearly established right. 81 An illegal entry based on a falsified warrant is a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment protections. 35 Killing and wounding the inhabitants of an apartment without cause, placing the survivors in jail, and sub- jecting them to trial based on spurious charges is a patent- y obvious violation of an individual’s right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 36 There is no need to examine the second branch of the doc- trine to determine whether the defendants acted with the req- uisite intent_to deprive them of the benefits of their qualified immunity. Either branch of the doctrine independently can deprive a defendant of the immunity. We note, however, that plaintiffs in the instant. case have presented sufficient evidence to require a trial court to submit the issue of the defendants’ intent to a jury if it were necessary to determine whether the defendants could avail themselves of qualified immunity.