Also known as: objective reasonableness · objective reasonableness standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard that evaluates official conduct or the scope of consent by asking what a reasonable person would have understood or done under the circumstances rather than by examining the actor's subjective state of mind. The test shields officials from damages liability when preexisting law did not place them on notice that their actions violated federal rights. It also determines the permissible reach of a consent search by asking whether officers could reasonably interpret the consent given.
Oscar Ortiz gave officers permission to search his car for drugs without any stated limits. Officers opened a closed duffel bag in the trunk and found narcotics. The search stayed within the consent because a reasonable officer could interpret the unlimited permission to include containers where drugs might be hidden.
Omar Olson, a government supervisor, ordered an employee transferred after the employee criticized agency policy. The employee sued for retaliation. Olson received qualified immunity because a reasonable official in his position would not have known at the time that the transfer violated clearly established First Amendment rights.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Odilia Okamura executed a search warrant that later proved defective because the supporting affidavit lacked probable cause. She seized evidence anyway. Suppression was denied because a reasonably well-trained officer could have believed the warrant was valid when issued.
Orion Orlov, a police officer, pursued a fleeing motorcycle at high speed through city streets. The chase ended when the motorcycle crashed. The officer obtained qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed the pursuit did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment limits on deadly force.
Oliver Okeke, a deputy sheriff, joined a high-speed chase of a motorcycle that ended in a fatal crash. The decedent's estate sued under the Fourteenth Amendment. The claim failed because the deputy's conduct did not shock the conscience under an objective standard of egregious behavior.
Odessa Okada, a deputy, allowed a television crew to accompany her during the execution of an arrest warrant inside a private home. The homeowner sued. The deputy received qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed at the time that the media presence did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.
The test asks only whether a reasonable official in the defendant's position would have understood that the conduct violated clearly established law. It ignores the defendant's actual state of mind or personal knowledge. This objective focus prevents plaintiffs from defeating immunity by alleging malice when the law was not clearly established.
Supporting sources
The right must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood the conduct violated it. Existing precedent must have placed the question beyond debate at the time of the action. Courts examine the specific facts confronting the official rather than abstract legal propositions.
Supporting sources
Yes. The same objective lens determines the scope of consent in a search. Officers may search closed containers when a reasonable person would understand the consent to extend there. The test likewise governs good-faith reliance on a defective warrant.
Supporting sources
…we do not believe that it will have this effect. As we have already suggested, the good-faith exception, turning as it does on objective reasonableness, should not be difficult to apply in practice. When officers have acted pursuant to a warrant, the prosecution should ordinarily be able to establish objective good faith without a…