ÿWPC Û#ÙøÍÏ¿¼ª`ƒÄÉÂ$OW«ªtp¿Œàv $Fïc¼vPy8tÄ4 Š£ySiFÈðbÝã±nE1âÖ_GÖ Ul\ä{ÂpŒX Â%ÙÔÚvÝÛœD„ÍØÌדÞÉ1”f}`yåGBæ ¸25J#z3)z<ã“Y…Âý>ié(éJ.XLŒYïî8Ñ'Wªû0Bÿšà°ªúî(Óñýª¾<žËy³ SR ?bó„Øb½q¨¾;ht‹ö}Oûf€õtÑ·ÿ1ãç•-Ë e(IŸO/‚Ë.t š!äëã¼i5VË«3*3“Ѐm¹‘ðô•Ë8ç§u’.–“ Ÿ(ä´–K!ç˜]‰˹L|j R 5µ­ Në UBí / N7 0Ô9 a Ùn 0DGâ‹VmbÃU<ËÎÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ Bë˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡¨-s ‚[ó,Æ¢Ø+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi („(2k°$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X %XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ=€êàÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó WÝ ƒk°$ÝÔ€ XåXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ=€þìÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú*Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€þìXÐXdÐXd=Óà ` àOf€the€Northern€District€of€California,€sitting€byÐ ° Ðdesignation. ÏÝ ƒk°$ÝÔ€ XåXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ=€þìÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€þìXÐXdÐXd=Óà ` àThe€motion€to€dismiss€also€encompassed€other€claimsÐ ° Ðagainst€Murphy€and€the€District€Attorney's€office.€€The€districtÐ xÈ Ðcourt€dismissed€some€claims,€and€denied€the€motion€as€to€otherÐ @ Ðclaims.€€òòÔ_ÔSubohÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòCity€of€Revereóó,€141€F.€Supp.€2d€124,€124,€145€(D.Ð X ÐMass.€2001).€€These€other€claims€are€not€at€issue€in€this€appeal.€Ð Ð  Ð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ØÝ ƒk°$ÝÔ€ XåXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ=€þìÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€þìXÐXdÐXd=Óà ` àThe€district€court€initially€denied€Ô_ÔBorgioliÔ_Ô's€motion€toÐ ° Ðstay€the€trial,€ruling€that€it€was€untimely€because€the€legalÐ xÈ Ðconclusion€from€which€Ô_ÔBorgioliÔ_Ô€sought€to€appeal€was€articulated€inÐ @ Ðits€March€30,€2001,€ruling,€from€which€Ô_ÔBorgioliÔ_Ô€took€no€appeal.€ò òó óÐ X ÐÔ_ÔBorgioliÔ_Ô€petitioned€this€court,€which€issued€an€order€clarifyingÐ Ð  Ðthat€Ô_ÔBorgioliÔ_Ô's€motion€was€timely.€€Following€that€order,€theÐ ˜è Ðdistrict€court€immediately€granted€the€requested€stay.ò òó ó LÝ ƒk°$ÝÔ€ XåXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ=€þìÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€þìXÐXdÐXd=Óà ` àThe€district€court's€holding€regarding€the€"substantiveÐ ° Ðdue€process€right€of€a€parent€and€her€child€not€to€have€a€child€inÐ xÈ Ðstate€custody€turned€over€to€someone€whom€the€state€knows,€orÐ @ Ðshould€know,€to€be€dangerous"€was€in€error.€€òòÔ_ÔSubohÔ_Ôóó,€141€F.€Supp.€2dÐ X Ðat€142.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€establish€that€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendants€had€any€reason€to€think€that€the€Ô_ÔKandysÔ_Ô€posed€a€dangerÐ ˜è Ðto€Sofia.- ù-ÙÖ7  `$Times NewRoman ÄÝ ƒk°$ÝÔ€ XåXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ=€þìÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€þìXÐXdÐXd=Óà ` àThere€does€not€appear€to€have€been€any€discovery€from€theÐ ° ÐFBI€agents€about€what€they€told€Ô_ÔSubohÔ_Ô€or€Ô_ÔBorgioliÔ_Ô. Ñ e Ñ dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓÓÓ=€ å XÐXdÐd=ÓÝ ƒÿÝÝ  ÝÔ‡‹ÉÅ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑØØÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÓÓÑ8€ å XXdÈdÈ8ÑÝ ƒÿÝÝ  ÝÔ‡ ‹åX‹‹ÉÅÔà ` àò òòòóóó óÔ#† XåXX ‹å•#Ôà@# # ìàò òÔ#†XþìXX Xå{#ÔÔ‡X eXXXþìÔÔ‡xe¸vXX eÔUnited€Ô#†X eXvxe¸,#ÔÔ‡°Äå °XX eÔStates€Court€of€AppealsˆÐ ° Ðà@ÈÈ ìàÔ#†X eX °°Äåu#ÔÔ‡„|( „XX eÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†X eX „„|(ö#Ôó óÔ#†XþìXXX e #ÔÔ‡ XåXXXþìԈРÒ" Ðà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ 2‚ ÐÌÌNos.€01„2272,€01„2524Ð Š Ú ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÓ  ÓÔ_ÔMOUNAÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKANDYÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSUBOHÔ_Ô,€INDIVIDUALLY,€AS€Ô_ÔADMINISTRATIXÔ_Ô€OF€THE€ESTATEÐ â 2 ÐOF€Ô_ÔISHAQÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSUBOHÔ_Ô,€AND€AS€NEXT€FRIEND€OF€HER€MINOR€DAUGHTER€SOFIAÐ ª ú  ÐÔ_ÔKANDYÔ_Ô,Ð r  ÐÌPlaintiff,€Appellà0 @ àee,Ð R  ÐÓ%Óà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ ’â  ÐÌÓ  ÓDISTRICT€ATTORNEY'S€OFFICE€OF€THE€SUFFOLK€DISTRICT,€MICHAEL€N.Ð "r ÐMURPHY,€CARL€Ô_ÔBORGIOLIÔ_Ô,Ð ê: ÐÌÓVÓà@ˆˆìàDefendants,€Appellants,ˆÐ zÊ ÐÌÓ  ÓCITY€OF€REVERE,€MASSACHUSETTS;€ROBERT€J.€HAAS€JR.;€JAMES€Ô_ÔRUSSOÔ_Ô;Ð  Z ÐSTEVEN€Ô_ÔPISANOÔ_Ô;€JOHN€Ô_ÔMCRAEÔ_Ô;€STEVEN€WALLACE;€THEODORE€Ô_ÔMICHALSKIÔ_Ô;Ð Ò" ÐÔ_ÔJULIEANNÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMAVAROSAÔ_Ô;€ANTONIO€Ô_ÔARCOSÔ_Ô;€JOHN€M.€Ô_ÔAZZARIÔ_Ô;€RICHARDÐ šê ÐÔ_ÔBACHOURÔ_Ô;€RALPH€C.€MARTIN€II;€INDIVIDUALLY€AND€IN€THEIR€OFFICIALÐ b² ÐCAPACITIES,Ð *z ÐÌDefendants.Ð º  ÐÓQÓà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ ‚Ò ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ b Ðà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ Ú* ÐÌÓ  Ó[Hon.€William€G.€Young,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]Ð j º! ÐÌÓò Óà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ ú!J# Ðà ` àà ¨ àà  àà X àà ° àÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ Š#Ú% ÐÓ  ÓÌÔ_ÔSelyaÔ_Ô€and€Lynch,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó,Ð %j ' Ðòòóóand€Ô_ÔSchwarzerÔ_Ô,Ù*ƒ!Ù׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú*Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòSenior€District€Judgeóó.òòóóÐ â%2!( ÐÌòòóóÓý Óà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ r'Â"* ÐÌÓ* °X°,X°` ¨ ƒX*Óòòóóà  àòòLinda€A.€Wagneróó,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€with€whom€òòThomasÐ )R$, ÐF.€Reillyóó,€Attorney€General,€was€on€the€brief€for€appellantsÐ Ê)%- ÐDistrict€Attorney's€Office€and€Michael€N.€Murphy.Ð ’*â%. Їòòà  àMichael€J.€Ô_ÔAkersonÔ_Ôóó€with€whom€òòAustin€M.€Joyceóó€and€òòEdward€P.Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔReardonÔ_Ô,€P.C.óó€were€on€the€brief€for€appellant€Carl€Ô_ÔBorgioliÔ_Ô.Ð xÈ ÐÌà  àòòHarvey€A.€Schwartzóó€with€whom€òòKimberly€H.€Ô_ÔSchecknerÔ_Ôóó,€òòRodgers,Ð X ÐPowers€&€Schwartzóó,€òòJames€R.€Ô_ÔKnudsenÔ_Ôóó,€and€òòWittenberg€&€AssociatesóóÐ Ð  Ðwere€on€the€brief€for€appellee.Ð ˜è Ðà  àÓ.°,X°` ¨ ƒX°X– .ÓòòóóÌà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ ( x ÐÌÓ  ÓAugust€1,€2002Ð ¸   ÐÓ©Óà@<< ìà____________________Ô‡ ‹åXX XåÔò òˆÐ  € Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÓÓÑ8€ å XXdÈ XXdÈ8ÑÑ€ïWÑÙ*!ÙÜÜà ` àÜÜÔ#†‹ÉÅ‹X ‹ås#ÔÔ#†XþìX‹‹ÉÅ#ÔòòóóÔ€ XåXXXþìÔLYNCH,€òòCircuit€Judgeó óóó.€€This€appeal€presents€issues€ofÐ ° Ðqualified€immunity€for€public€officers,€beneath€which€lieÐ à Ðsignificant€issues€about€parents'€rights€under€the€United€StatesÐ  p ÐConstitution.€€The€case€history€is€one€of€international€intrigueÐ °  Ðand€of€local€law€enforcement€officers€attempting€to€respond€to€theÐ @  Ðrequirements€of€both€criminal€law€and€family€law.€€Of€the€twoÐ Ð   Ðdefendants€before€us€on€appeal,€we€hold€that€one,€AssistantÐ `°  ÐDistrict€Attorney€Michael€Murphy,€is€entitled€to€qualifiedÐ ð@  Ðimmunity.€€The€other,€Revere€Police€Officer€Carl€Borgioli,€is€notÐ €Ð  Ðso€entitled€at€the€summary€judgment€stage.€€Consequently,€weÐ ` Ðreverse€the€district€court's€denial€of€summary€judgment€on€thisÐ  ð Ðissue€as€to€Murphy€and€affirm€the€denial€as€to€Borgioli.Ð 0€ Ðà@tt)ìàI.ˆÐ À Ðà ` àWe€give€the€general€background€and€then€focus€on€what€wasÐ P  Ðknown€to€the€two€defendants.€€We€describe€the€facts€in€favor€of€theÐ à0 Ðnonmoving€party€on€summary€judgment.€€Ð pÀ Ðà ` àThis€case€arises€out€of€a€complicated€family€dispute,Ð P  Ðinvolving€three€generations€and€three€continents.€€The€end€result,Ð à" Ðaccording€to€the€plaintiff,€is€that€she€has€been€deprived€ofÐ  !p$ Ðcustody€of€her€young€daughter€due€to€the€actions€of€the€defendants.Ð °"& Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff,€Mouna€Kandy€Suboh,€is€a€native€of€MoroccoÐ @$( Ðand€is€now€a€resident€of€Massachusetts.€€In€1991,€while€stillÐ Ð% !* Ðliving€with€her€parents€in€Morocco,€she€became€pregnant€out€ofÐ `'°", Ðwedlock.€€Suboh€then€fled€to€Holland€to€avoid€what€she€says€was€herÐ ð(@$. Ðfather's€rage€at€her€pregnancy.€€A€daughter,€Sofia,€was€born€inÐ €*Ð%0 ÐHolland€on€April€9,€1992.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Suboh's€motherÐ ,`'2 Ðtraveled€to€Holland€and€convinced€her€to€return€to€Morocco€with€theÐ ° Ðbaby.€€Suboh's€parents,€the€Kandys,€then€raised€Sofia€as€if€sheÐ @ Ðwere€their€own€child.€€At€some€point,€Suboh€says,€the€KandysÐ Ð  Ðobtained€a€fake€birth€certificate€purporting€to€certify€that€SofiaÐ ` ° Ðwas€their€biological€child.€€At€no€point€did€they€ever€legallyÐ ð @ Ðadopt€Sofia;€according€to€the€plaintiff,€Moroccan€law€does€notÐ € Ð  Ðallow€such€adoptionsò òó ó€and€Morocco€officially€recognizes€Suboh€asÐ `  ÐSofia's€mother.ò òó ó€€Suboh€claims€that€her€father€is€physically€abusiveÐ  ð  Ðand€controlling,€and€that€she€agreed€to€her€parents€pretending€toÐ 0€  Ðbe€Sofia's€parents€only€because€she€feared€her€parents€would€notÐ À Ðlet€her€see€Sofia€at€all€if€she€did€not€agree.ò òó óÐ P  Ðà ` àIn€1995,€Suboh€met€an€American€citizen,€Ishaq€Suboh,€andÐ à0 Ðmoved€to€Massachusetts€to€marry€him.€€She€says€that€the€Kandys€hadÐ pÀ Ðpromised€to€send€Sofia€to€live€with€her€in€the€United€States,€butÐ P Ðreneged€on€that€promise€once€she€had€left€Morocco.ò òó ó€€Suboh€says€sheÐ à Ðreturned€to€Morocco€four€times,€attempting€to€obtain€custody.€SheÐ  p Ðalso€filed€a€case€in€the€Moroccan€court€system,€but€she€says€thatÐ °  Ðthe€case€was€never€adjudicated,€due€to€her€father's€power€andÐ @" Ðinfluence€in€Morocco.ò òó ó€€She€eventually€dropped€the€legal€case€soÐ Ð $ Ðthat€her€father€would€allow€her€to€see€Sofia€again.ò òó óÐ `"°& Ðà ` àIn€April€1998,€the€Kandys€came€to€Massachusetts€in€orderÐ ð#@( Ðfor€Suboh's€father€to€receive€medical€treatment.ò òó ó€€They€broughtÐ €%Ð * ÐSofia€with€them€and€stayed€with€Suboh€and€her€husband€at€theirÐ '`", Ðapartment€in€Revere.€€On€May€26,€1998,€Suboh€and€her€husbandÐ  (ð#. Ðquarreled€with€the€Kandys€about€whether€Sofia€would€be€returning€toÐ 0*€%0 ÐMorocco€with€the€Kandys€or€staying€with€Suboh€in€Massachusetts.Ð À+'2 ÐÑïWÑâ âÑe°Ñâ âÑ  Ñò òó óFollowing€that€fight,€Suboh's€husband€called€the€Boston€cityÐ ° Ðcouncillor's€office€to€explain€the€situation.€€An€official€thereÐ @ Ðadvised€the€pair€to€keep€Sofia€with€them.ò òó ó€€Suboh€and€her€husbandÐ Ð  Ðthen€packed€up€their€things,€took€Sofia,€and€went€to€the€cityÐ ` ° Ðcouncillor's€office.ò òó ó€€They€took€with€them€Sofia's€Dutch€birthÐ ð @ Ðcertificate,€Moroccan€birth€identification€records€showing€thatÐ € Ð  ÐSuboh€was€Sofia's€mother,€a€document€from€the€Dutch€hospital€whereÐ `  ÐSofia€was€born,€papers€from€Suboh's€Moroccan€attorney,€and€copiesÐ  ð  Ðof€the€Kandys'€forged€documentation.ò ò€ó ó€An€official€at€the€cityÐ 0€  Ðcouncillor's€office€told€them€she€would€contact€an€attorney€forÐ ` Ðthem,€and€advised€them€to€stay€away€from€the€Kandys€and€keep€SofiaÐ  ð Ðwith€them€in€the€meantime.ò ò€ó ó€Suboh€and€her€husband€also€went€to€theÐ 0€ ÐImmigration€and€Naturalization€Service€office€to€try€to€obtainÐ ` Ðresidency€papers€for€Sofia,€but€were€unable€to€do€so€because€theyÐ  ð Ðdid€not€have€her€passport.ò òó ó€€Later€that€day,€they€checked€into€aÐ 0€ Ðhotel.€€The€following€day,€after€Suboh's€husband€spoke€with€Mr.Ð À ÐKandy,€the€two€checked€into€another€hotel.ò òó óÐ P   Ðà ` àMustapha€Kandy,€Suboh's€father,€called€the€Revere€police€Ð à0" Ðand€reported€that€one€of€his€daughters€(Suboh)€had€kidnapped€hisÐ p!À$ Ðother€daughter€(Sofia).ò òó ó€€The€Kandys€told€the€Revere€police€thatÐ #P& ÐSuboh€and€Sofia€were€sisters€and€that€they,€the€Kandys,€wereÐ $à( ÐSofia's€parents.ò òó ó€€The€Kandys€showed€the€police€a€birth€certificateÐ  &p!* Ðin€French€and€Arabic€indicating€that€Sofia€was€their€daughter.€Ð °'#, ÐThis€birth€certificate€was€translated€by€a€Revere€police€officer.€ò òó óÐ @)$. Ѐò òó óà ` àIn€the€early€morning€of€May€28,€Officer€Borgioli€becameÐ Ð* &0 Ðinvolved€with€the€case.€€He€reviewed€the€information€that€hisÐ `,°'2 Ðcolleagues€had€obtained€on€the€previous€day.€€He€went€to€the€RevereÐ ° Ðapartment€to€interview€the€Kandys.ò òó ó€€The€Kandys€also€showed€himÐ @ ÐSofia's€passport€and€a€document€that€turned€out€to€be€the€forgedÐ Ð  Ðbirth€certificate.ò ò€ó ó€While€at€the€apartment,€Borgioli€also€spokeÐ ` ° Ðwith€the€officer€who€had€translated€the€Kandys'€documents.ò ò€ó óÐ @  ÐBorgioli€also€spoke€with€the€Kandy's€niece,€who€was€visiting€at€theÐ  p  Ðtime.€€Borgioli€stated€in€an€affidavit€that€the€niece€told€him€thatÐ °  Ðthe€Kandys€had€raised€Sofia€from€a€very€young€ageò òó ó.Ð @  Ðà ` àBorgioli€testified€at€his€deposition€that€Mrs.€Kandy€toldÐ Ð  Ðeither€him€or€one€of€the€FBI€agents€that€Suboh€was€Sofia'sÐ `° Ðbiological€mother€and€that€the€Kandys€had€adopted€Sofia.€€ò òó óIn€hisÐ ð@ Ðpolice€report,€Borgioli€did€not€include€anything€about€thisÐ €Ð Ðsupposed€adoption,€or€the€fact€that€the€Kandys€allegedly€told€himÐ ` Ðthat€Suboh€was€Sofia's€biological€mother.€ò òó óHis€affidavit€confirmsÐ  ð Ðthat€he€learned€that€Suboh€was€the€biological€mother€from€SubohÐ 0€ Ðherself,€when€he€interviewed€her€on€the€following€day€at€the€policeÐ À Ðstation.ò òó ó€ò ò€ó óBorgioli€testified€that€he€was€under€the€impression,Ð P   Ðbased€on€something€that€an€Arabic„speaking€FBI€agent€told€him,€thatÐ 0 €" Ðthe€Kandys'€documents€wereò òó ó€adoption€papers.€€But€he€also€testifiedÐ À!$ Ðthat€he€did€not€recall€that€either€the€Kandys€or€anyone€else€hadÐ P# & Ðever€used€the€word€adoption.€ò òó ó€And€this€belief€was€also€inconsistentÐ à$0 ( Ðwith€the€document€itself,€which€refers€to€Mrs.€Kandy€as€the€motherÐ p&À!* Ðand€says€nothing€about€adoption.Ð (P#, Ðà ` àMr.€Kandy€told€Borgioli€that€their€son„in„law,€IshaqÐ )à$. ÐSuboh,€had€come€to€the€apartment€at€some€point€earlier€that€day€orÐ  +p&0 Ðon€the€previous€day.€€Mr.€Kandy€said€that,€at€that€time,€Ishaq€hadÐ °,(2 Ðstolen€a€Rolex€watch€from€him€and€asked€for€money,€which€he€gaveÐ ° Ðhim.ò òó ó€€Mr.€Kandy€said€that€Ishaq€then€asked€for€more€money€and€saidÐ @ Ðhe€would€call€back€later€to€arrange€for€a€time€for€them€to€meet.Ð Ð  Ðò òó óBorgioli€stated€that€Mr.€Kandy€believed€that€Suboh€and€her€husbandÐ ` ° Ðwere€holding€Sofia€for€ransom€money.ò òó ó€€There€is€nothing€in€theÐ ð @ Ðrecord,€however,€about€Ishaq€Suboh€requesting€ransom€for€the€returnÐ € Ð  Ðof€Sofia€and€nothing€indicating€that€Mouna€Suboh€knew€of€suchÐ `  Ðrequests,€if€any€were€made.ò òó ó€€Ð  ð  Ðà ` àOfficer€Borgioli€called€the€District€Attorney's€officeÐ 0€  Ðfrom€the€apartment.€€Borgioli€spoke€with€Assistant€DistrictÐ À ÐAttorney€Murphy,€telling€him€that€the€case€involved€a€kidnappingÐ P  Ðfor€ransom€and€asking€him€questions€about€setting€up€a€tap€on€theÐ à0 Ðapartment's€telephone.ò òó ó€€Murphy€did€not€remember€whether€BorgioliÐ pÀ Ðtold€him€that€the€Kandys€were€the€biological€parents€of€Sofia,€orÐ P Ðher€custodians,€but€he€says€that€Borgioli€led€him€to€believe€thatÐ à Ðthe€Kandys€had€legal€custody€of€Sofia.ò òó óÐ  p Ðà ` àWhile€Borgioli€was€obtaining€information€from€the€Kandys,Ð °  Ða€fellow€Revere€police€officer,€who€was€with€him€at€the€RevereÐ @" Ðapartment,€obtained€information€that€Ishaq€Suboh€had€attempted€toÐ Ð $ Ðcharge€airline€tickets€to€his€credit€card,€which€was€at€its€limit.€Ð `"°& ÐAt€this€point,€the€FBI€was€called€in€to€assist€with€the€case.Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àAt€some€point€during€the€day,€Ishaq€Suboh€called€from€aÐ €%Ð * Ðnumber€that€the€police€later€learned€was€the€Boston€City€Council.€Ð '`", ÐHe€refused€to€speak€with€Mr.€Kandy,€but€spoke€with€Mrs.€Kandy€andÐ  (ð#. Ðarranged€to€meet€her€at€a€nearby€donut€shop.€€Borgioli€says€that€heÐ 0*€%0 Ðunderstood€the€purpose€of€the€meeting€was€to€arrange€theÐ À+'2 Ðcircumstances€for€Sofia's€return.€€A€special€agent€from€the€FBIÐ ° Ðlistened€in€on€the€phone€conversation.ò òó ó€€The€meeting€never€tookÐ @ Ðplace.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àThe€following€day,€two€Revere€police€officers€(notÐ ` ° Ðincluding€Borgioli)€located€Suboh€in€a€hotel€in€Malden.ò òó ó€€Suboh€toldÐ ð @ Ðthe€police€at€that€time€that€Sofia€was€her€daughter€and€attemptedÐ € Ð  Ðto€give€them€official,€certified€documentation€showing€that€she€wasÐ `  ÐSofia's€birth€mother.€€The€police€declined€to€accept€the€documentsÐ  ð  Ðat€that€time.ò òó ó€Ð 0€  Ðà ` àThe€police€then€took€Suboh€and€Sofia€to€the€Revere€policeÐ À Ðstation€to€be€interviewed.€€Borgioli€conducted€the€interview.ò òó ó€Ð P  ÐSuboh€told€Borgioli€that€she€was€Sofia's€mother€and€that€theÐ à0 ÐKandys'€documents€were€false.ò òó ó€€She€says€she€told€him€about€theÐ pÀ Ðfight€with€her€parents€regarding€whether€Sofia€would€return€toÐ P ÐMorocco.ò òó ó€€She€says€she€also€told€him€that€she€had€legal€custody€ofÐ à ÐSofia.ò òó ó€€She€again€showed€all€her€documentation€from€the€NetherlandsÐ  p Ðand€Morocco.€€She€also€repeatedly€requested€that€Borgioli€call€theÐ °  ÐMoroccan€embassy€or€the€Netherlands€embassy€to€verify€herÐ @" Ðdocumentation.ò òó ó€€The€police€took€Suboh's€documents€and€photocopiedÐ Ð $ Ðthem,€although€they€made€no€effort€to€have€them€translated€or€toÐ `"°& Ðconfirm€them€with€the€relevant€embassies.ò ò€ó ó€Suboh€also€told€BorgioliÐ ð#@( Ðthat€her€parents'€visa€was€about€to€expire,€and€they€had€tickets€toÐ Ð% !* Ðreturn€to€Morocco€with€Sofia.ò ò€ó ó€She€says€she€asked€the€police€toÐ `'°", Ðkeep€Sofia€in€state€custody.ò ò€ó ó€Suboh€says€that€the€police€repeatedlyÐ @)$. Ðasked€her€about€the€stolen€watch€and€her€husband's€alleged€demandÐ  +p&0 Ðfor€money,€and€that€she€responded,€"Which€watch,€what€money,€IÐ °,(2 Ðdon't€know€what€you're€talking€about."ò ò€€ó óShe€says€they€were€onlyÐ ° Ðconcerned€about€the€money€and€the€watch,€and€her€movements€over€theÐ à Ðprevious€two€days,€and€not€about€her€claims€to€be€Sofia's€mother.ò òÐ  p Ѐó óà ` àBorgioli€testified€that€Suboh€told€him€she€had€given€upÐ °  Ðcustody€of€Sofia€to€the€Kandysò òó ó,€or€that€the€Kandys€had€adoptedÐ  à ÐSofia€without€Suboh's€consent€and€that€she€was€trying€to€"regain"Ð  p  Ðcustody.ò òó ó€€This€is€contrary€to€Suboh's€testimony,€as€is€Borgioli'sÐ °  Ðstatement€that€Suboh€never€told€him€not€to€release€Sofia€to€theÐ @  ÐKandys,€or€expressed€fear€that€the€Kandys€would€take€Sofia€toÐ Ð  ÐMorocco.ò ò€€ó óBorgioli€did€admit€that€Suboh€said€she€had€never€givenÐ `° Ðher€permission€for€an€adoption.€€He€also€testified€that€Suboh€hadÐ @ Ðsuggested€that€the€Kandys'€documents€were€forged,€but€said€that€"itÐ Ð  Ðwas€just€speculation€on€her€part"€and€he€thought€she€was€justÐ `° Ðtrying€to€avoid€being€arrested.ò òó ó€€He€also€recalled€her€telling€himÐ ð@ Ðabout€the€difficulties€she€had€trying€to€regain€custody€under€theÐ €Ð ÐMoroccan€system.ò ò€ó ó€He€said€that€he€made€no€effort€to€investigateÐ ` Ðwhether€Suboh's€claims€about€the€various€custody€documents€wereÐ ð@  Ðtrue,€because€he€had€no€reason,€other€than€Suboh's€word,€to€believeÐ € Ð" Ðher.ò ò€ó ó€The€same€was,€of€course,€true€for€the€Kandys'€word.ò òÐ "`$ Ðà ` àó óDuring€the€interview,€Borgioli€again€called€AssistantÐ ð#@& ÐDistrict€Attorney€Murphy.€€Both€Borgioli€and€Murphy€agree€that,€atÐ €%Ð ( Ðthis€point,€Borgioli€told€Murphy€that€Suboh€was€Sofia's€biologicalÐ '`"* Ðmother.ò òó ó€€He€asked€Murphy,€in€a€case€where€Suboh€was€the€biologicalÐ  (ð#, Ðmother€but€not€the€legal€guardian,€whether€he€should€charge€herÐ 0*€%. Ðwith€straight€kidnapping,€kidnapping€by€a€relative,€or€kidnappingÐ À+'0 Ðby€a€parent.ò òó ó€€He€also€either€asked€if€he€could€release€Sofia€to€theÐ ° ÐKandys,€or€stated€that€he€was€going€to€release€Sofia€to€them.ò òó ó€Ð @ ÐMurphy€replied€that€he€would€have€to€call€back.€€When€he€calledÐ Ð  Ðback€a€few€minutes€later,€Murphy€told€Borgioli€that€Suboh€should€beÐ ` ° Ðcharged€with€kidnapping€by€a€relative.€ò òó ó€Murphy€may€have€also€saidÐ ð @ Ð"okay"€in€response€to€Borgioli's€statement€or€question€aboutÐ € Ð  Ðreleasing€Sofia€to€the€Kandys,€but€Murphy€did€not€recall€havingÐ `  Ðsaid€that.ò òó ó€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€Murphy€wasÐ  ð  Ðgiven€any€additional€information€about€the€case,€such€as€the€factÐ 0€  Ðthat€Suboh€had€documentation€beyond€what€the€Kandys€had€presentedÐ À Ðor€the€fact€that€Suboh€alleged€that€the€Kandys'€documents€wereÐ P  Ðforged.ò òó ó€€There€is€no€evidence€that€Murphy€was€told€that€legalÐ à0 Ðcustody€of€the€child€was€disputed.ò ò€€ó óThere€is€also€no€evidence€thatÐ pÀ ÐMurphy€knew,€or€had€reason€to€believe,€that€the€Kandys'€visa€wasÐ P  Ðexpiring€or€that€they€planned€to€take€Sofia€back€to€MoroccoÐ à0 Ðimmediately.ò òÐ pÀ Ðà ` àó óSuboh€says€that€Borgioli€told€her€that€Sofia€would€beÐ P  Ðtemporarily€placed€in€state€custody.€€Suboh€says€that€an€FBI€agentÐ à" Ðwho€was€present€also€told€her€that€Sofia€would€be€placed€with€theÐ  !p$ Ðstate€Department€of€Social€Services€(DSS),€and€the€police€wouldÐ °"& Ðkeep€her€passport.€€She€says€the€agent€instructed€Borgioli€to€"keepÐ @$( Ðthe€passport€and€the€daughter€at€the€DSS."׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò ò€ó ó€Borgioli€says€that€heÐ Ð% !* Ðâ ânever€considered€involving€the€DSS.ò òó óÐ °'#, Ðà ` àThe€police€charged€Suboh€with€kidnapping€by€a€relativeÐ ° Ðâ âand€transported€her€to€court.€€Suboh€asked€if€Sofia€could€come€withÐ @ Ðher,€and€Borgioli€told€her€that€Sofia€could€not€come€to€court,€butÐ Ð  Ðthat€Suboh€would€see€Sofia€when€she€came€out€of€court.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àDespite€these€representations€to€Suboh€and€the€statementÐ ð @ Ðby€the€FBI€agent€instructing€Borgioli€to€place€the€child€with€DSS,Ð € Ð  ÐBorgioli€then€released€Sofia€to€the€Kandys.ò òó ó€€Borgioli€did€not€askÐ `  Ðthe€Kandys€not€to€leave€the€country,€nor€did€he€make€any€efforts€toÐ  ð  Ðmake€sure€that€they€would€not€leave€the€country€with€Sofia.€€HeÐ 0€  Ðadmits€that€he€never€told€Suboh€that€he€was€going€to€release€SofiaÐ À Ðto€the€Kandys€and€admits€that€it€is€fair€to€say€that€the€decisionÐ P  Ðto€release€Sofia€to€the€Kandys€was€his€decision.ò òó óÐ à0 Ðà ` àImmediately€after€Sofia€was€returned€to€them,€the€KandysÐ pÀ Ðreturned€to€Morocco€with€the€child.€€The€charges€against€Suboh€andÐ P Ðher€husband€were€later€dismissed.ò òó ó€€Suboh€has€not€been€able€toÐ à Ðregain€physical€custody€of€her€daughter€since€that€time.ò òó óÐ  p Ðà@88)ìàII.ˆÐ °  Ðà ` àOn€March€6,€2000,€Suboh,€the€estate€of€her€now„deceasedÐ @" Ðhusband,ò ò€ó óand€Sofia€(acting€through€Suboh,€her€next€friend)€broughtÐ Ð $ Ðsuit€in€the€federal€district€court€of€Massachusetts€againstÐ °"& ÐBorgioli,€Murphy,€the€District€Attorney's€office,€the€City€ofÐ @$( ÐRevere,€and€various€other€individuals€associated€with€the€case.€TheÐ Ð% !* Ðcase€alleged€deprivation€of€the€rights€of€Suboh,€her€husband,€andÐ `'°", ÐSofia,€as€secured€by€the€Constitution€and€the€laws€of€the€UnitedÐ ð(@$. ÐStates,€and€liability€under€the€Massachusetts€Torts€Claims€Act,Ð €*Ð%0 ÐMass.€Gen.€Laws.€ch.€258,€ðð€2€(2000),€the€Massachusetts€CivilÐ ,`'2 ÐRights€Act,€òòid.óó€ch.€12€ðð€11I,€and€various€state€law€tort€claims.ò ò€ó óÐ ° ÐFor€purposes€of€this€appeal,€we€analyze€all€of€the€claims€asÐ à ÐSuboh's€claims.Ð  p Ðà ` àOn€August€1,€2000,€Murphy€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€theÐ °  Ððð€1983€claims€brought€against€him€in€his€individual€capacity,Ð @  Ðasserting€immunity€and€other€defenses.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSubohóó€v.€òòCity€of€Revereóó,Ð Ð   Ð141€F.€Supp.€2d€124,€127€(D.€Mass.€2001).€€On€March€30,€2001,€theÐ `°  Ðdistrict€court€denied€the€motion€to€dismiss,€holding€that€MurphyÐ ð@  Ðwas€not€entitled€to€either€absolute€prosecutorial€immunity€orÐ €Ð  Ðqualified€immunity.€€òòId.óó€at€136„45.€€As€for€Murphy's€claim€ofÐ ` Ðabsolute€prosecutorial€immunity,€the€district€court€reasoned€thatÐ  ð Ðbecause€"the€deprivation€of€which€[the€plaintiffs]€complain€isÐ 0€ Ðwholly€unrelated€to€any€prosecutorial€functions,"€there€was€noÐ À Ðprosecutorial€immunity.€€òòId.óó€at€137.€€The€district€court€thenÐ P  Ðconcluded€that€Murphy€was€not€protected€by€qualified€immunityÐ à0 Ðbecause€Suboh's€claim€"lies€at€the€core"€of€a€clearly€establishedÐ pÀ Ðright€to€familial€integrity,€òòid.óó€at€140,€and€that,€as€the€case€wasÐ P  Ðpresented€by€Suboh,€"a€reasonable€person€in€Murphy's€position€wouldÐ à" Ðhave€known€that€his€release€of€Sofia€into€the€Kandys'€custodyÐ  !p$ Ðviolated€that€right,"€òòid.óó€at€142.€€As€a€second€ground,€it€reasonedÐ °"& Ðthat€Murphy's€conduct€violated€a€clearly€established€"substantiveÐ @$( Ðdue€process€right€of€a€parent€and€her€child€not€to€have€a€child€inÐ Ð% !* Ðstate€custody€turned€over€to€someone€whom€the€state€knows,€orÐ ° Ðshould€know,€to€be€dangerous."€€òòId.óóÐ @ Ðà ` àMurphy€originally€appealed€from€the€district€court'sÐ Ð  Ðdecision,€but€then€voluntarily€withdrew€his€appeal€withoutÐ ` ° Ðprejudice,€after€filing€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€with€theÐ ð @ Ðdistrict€court.ò ò€ó ó€On€September€25,€2001,€the€district€court€deniedÐ € Ð  ÐMurphy's€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€court€agreed€that€it€wasÐ `°  Ðundisputed€that€"the€whole€case€was€presented€to€Mr.€Murphy€[byÐ ð@  ÐBorgioli]€in€a€sense€favorable€to€the€grandparents."ò òó ó€€Nonetheless,Ð €Ð  Ðit€found€that€there€was€a€material€fact€in€dispute€as€to€whetherÐ ` ÐBorgioli€asked€Murphy€for€legal€advice€regarding€whether€to€releaseÐ  ð ÐSofia€to€the€Kandys.ò òó ó€€Ð 0€ Ðò òà ` àó óOn€August€17,€2001,€Borgioli€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ À Ðjudgment.ò òó ó€€On€September€5,€2001,€the€district€court€grantedÐ P  ÐBorgioli's€motion€with€respect€to€Suboh's€Fourth€Amendment€claims,Ð à0 Ðbut€left€Suboh's€Fourteenth€Amendment€claims€standing€and€deniedÐ pÀ ÐBorgioli's€qualified€immunity€defense€for€the€reasons€articulatedÐ P  Ðin€its€March€30,€2001,€decision€regarding€Murphy's€qualifiedÐ à" Ðimmunity€defense.ò òó óÐ  !p$ Ðà ` àThe€court€stayed€the€trial€pending€Murphy's€andÐ °"& ÐBorgioli's€appeals.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÐ @$( Ðà@üü(ìàIII.ˆÐ ° Ðà ` àThis€court€has€jurisdiction€to€consider€interlocutoryÐ @ Ðappeals€from€the€denial€of€a€defendant's€motion€to€dismiss€or€forÐ Ð  Ðsummary€judgment€on€a€qualified€immunity€defense.€€òòBehrensóó€v.Ð ` ° ÐòòPelletieróó,€516€U.S.€299,€305„07€(1996);€òòDuriex„Gauthieróó€v.€òòLopez„Ð ð @ ÐNievesóó,€274€F.3d€4,€6€(1stòòóó€Cir.€2001).€€Denials€of€summary€judgmentÐ € Ð  Ðon€qualified€immunity€grounds€are€reviewed€"to€the€extent€that€theÐ `  Ðqualified€immunity€defense€turns€upon€a€'purely€legal'€question"Ð  ð  Ðand€any€disputed€facts€are€not€material€to€the€issue€of€immunity.€Ð 0€  ÐòòFletcheróó€v.€òòTown€of€Clintonóó,€196€F.3d€41,€45€(1st€Cir.€1999)Ð À Ð(citations€and€internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€€Our€standard€ofÐ P  Ðreview€in€such€cases€is€de€novo.€€òòId.óó€at€48.Ð à0 Ðà ` àWe€use€a€three„part€test€to€determine€whether€an€officialÐ pÀ Ðis€entitled€to€qualified€immunity,€òòHatchóó€v.€òòDep't€of€Children,Ð P ÐYouth€&€Their€Familiesóó,€274€F.3d€12,€20€(1st€Cir.€2001),€followingÐ à Ðthe€guidance€provided€by€the€Supreme€Court,€òòseeóó€òòWilsonóó€v.€òòLayneóó,Ð  p Ð526€U.S.€603,€609€(1999);€òòCounty€of€Sacramentoóó€v.€òòLewisóó,€523€U.S.Ð °  Ð833,€841€n.5€(1998);€òòSiegertóó€v.€òòGilleyóó,€500€U.S.€226,€232€(1991)òòóó.€Ð @" ÐThe€threshold€inquiry€is€whether€the€plaintiff's€allegations,€ifÐ Ð $ Ðtrue,€establish€a€constitutional€violation.€€òòHopeóó€v.€òòPelzeróó,€122€S.Ð `"°& ÐCt.€2508,€2513€(2002);€òòSaucieróó€v.€òòKatzóó,€533€U.S.€194,€201€(2001);Ð ð#@( ÐòòSiegertóó,€500€U.S.€at€232.€€The€second€question€is€whether€the€rightÐ €%Ð * Ðwas€clearly€established€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€violation.€€ThatÐ '`", Ðinquiry€is€necessary€because€officers€should€be€on€notice€thatÐ  (ð#. Ðtheir€conduct€is€unlawful€before€they€are€subject€to€suit.€€òòHopeóó,Ð 0*€%0 Ð122€S.€Ct.€at€2516„18;€òòAndersonóó€v.€òòCreightonóó,€483€U.S.€635,€638„40Ð À+'2 Ð(1987).€€The€third€is€whether€a€reasonable€officer,€similarlyÐ ° Ðsituated,€would€understand€that€the€challenged€conduct€violatedÐ @ Ðthat€established€right.€€òòSwainóó€v.€òòSpinneyóó,€117€F.3d€1,€9€(1stòòóó€Cir.Ð Ð  Ð1997).€€The€question€of€whether€a€right€is€clearly€established€isÐ ` ° Ðan€issue€of€law€for€the€court€to€decide.€€òòElderóó€v.€òòHollowayóó,€510Ð ð @ ÐU.S.€510,€516€(1994).€€The€reasonableness€inquiry€is€also€a€legalÐ € Ð  Ðdetermination,€although€it€may€entail€preliminary€factualÐ `  Ðdeterminations€if€there€are€disputed€material€facts€(which€shouldÐ  ð  Ðbe€left€for€a€jury).€€òòSwainóó,€117€F.3d€at€10.Ð 0€  Ðà ` àBorgioli€argues€that€none€of€the€three€criteria€are€met.€ò òó óÐ À ÐMurphy€makes€the€more€restrained€argument€that€the€second€twoÐ P  Ðcriteria€are€not€metò ò.ó ó€€The€arguments€merge€to€the€extent€that€theyÐ à0 Ðboth€assert€that€there€is€no€clear€definition€of€what€the€districtÐ À Ðcourt€called€a€"right€to€familial€integrity."€€òòSubohóó,€141€F.€Supp.Ð P  Ð2d€at€139.Ð à0 ÐòòA.€€Identification€of€a€Constitutional€RightóóÐ pÀ Ðà ` àThe€district€court€based€its€ruling€on€an€abstract€rightÐ P  Ðto€"familial€integrity"€inherent€in€the€substantive€component€ofÐ à" Ðthe€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€òòId.óó€€In€doingÐ  !p$ Ðso,€the€district€court€relied€on€a€series€of€Supreme€Court€casesÐ °"& Ðranging€from€òòMeyeróó€v.€òòNebraskaóó,€262€U.S.€390€(1923),€to€òòTroxelóó€v.Ð @$( ÐòòGranvilleóó,€530€U.S.€57€(2000).€€These€cases€cover€a€range€ofÐ Ð% !* Ðissues,€from€constraints€on€a€state's€power€to€mandate€compulsoryÐ `'°", Ðpublic€education,€òòMeyeróó,€262€U.S.€390,€to€constraints€on€a€stateððsÐ ð(@$. Ðability€to€mandate€grandparent€visitation€rights,€òòTroxelóó,€530€U.S.Ð €*Ð%0 Ð57.€€Ð ,`'2 Ðà ` àThere€is€a€danger€in€the€use€of€broad€abstract€terms€suchÐ ° Ðas€"familial€integrity".€€The€Supreme€Court€has€warned€againstÐ @ Ðusing€generalized€definitions€of€constitutional€rights€in€theÐ Ð  Ðqualified€immunity€setting.€€òòAndersonóó,€483€U.S.€at€639.€€ThisÐ ` ° Ðcourt,€in€òòFrazieróó€v.€òòBaileyóó,€957€F.2d€920,€929„30€(1st€Cir.€1992),Ð ð @ Ðheld€that€it€is€not€sufficient€for€a€plaintiff€to€allege€anÐ € Ð  Ðabstract€due€process€liberty€interest€in€family€relationships.€€TheÐ `  Ðqualified€immunity€defense€requires€that€the€"familial€integrity"Ð  ð  Ðright€asserted€be€stated€with€particularity.€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHatchóó,Ð 0€  Ð274€F.3d€at€20.Ð À Ðà ` àPutting€aside€notions€of€generalized€"familialÐ P  Ðintegrity,"€there€are,€more€pertinently,€much€more€narrow€interestsÐ à0 Ðthat€are€at€stake€here.€€To€begin,€"[t]he€interest€of€parents€inÐ pÀ Ðthe€care,€custody,€and€control€of€their€children€is€among€the€mostÐ P Ðvenerable€of€the€liberty€interests€embedded€in€the€Constitution."€Ð à ÐòòHatchóó,€274€F.3d€at€20;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCroftóó€v.€òòWestmoreland€CountyÐ  p ÐChildren€&€Youth€Servs.óó,€103€F.3d€1123,€1125€(3d€Cir.€1997)Ð °  Ð(recognizing€"the€constitutionally€protected€liberty€interests€thatÐ @" Ðparents€have€in€the€custody,€care€and€management€of€theirÐ Ð $ Ðchildren");€òòJordanóó€v.€òòJacksonóó,€15€F.3d€333,€342€(4th€Cir.€1994)Ð `"°& Ð("The€state's€removal€of€a€child€from€his€parents€indisputablyÐ ð#@( Ðconstitutes€an€interference€with€a€liberty€interest€of€the€parentsÐ €%Ð * Ðand€thus€triggers€the€procedural€protections€of€the€FourteenthÐ '`", ÐAmendment.");€òòWelleróó€v.€òòDep't€of€Soc.€Servs.óó,€901€F.2d€387,€391Ð  (ð#. Ð(4th€Cir.€1990)€("[The€plaintiff]€clearly€does€have€a€protectibleÐ 0*€%0 Ðliberty€interest€in€the€care€and€custody€of€his€children.");€òòHooksóóÐ À+'2 Ðv.€òòHooksóó,€771€F.2d€935,€941€(6th€Cir.€1985)€("It€is€well„settledÐ ° Ðthat€parents€have€a€liberty€interest€in€the€custody€of€theirÐ @ Ðchildren.")€€The€child€has€a€similar€liberty€interest€in€being€inÐ Ð  Ðthe€care€and€custody€of€her€parents.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrokawóó€v.€òòMercer€Countyóó,Ð ` ° Ð235€F.3d€1000,€1018„19€(7th€Cir.€2000);€òòWooleyóó€v.€òòCity€of€BatonÐ ð @ ÐRougeóó,€211€F.3d€913,€923€(5th€Cir.€2000);€òòDuchesneóó€v.€òòSugarmanóó,€566Ð € Ð  ÐF.2d€817,€825€(2d€Cir.€1977);€òòOpinion€of€the€Justices€to€theÐ `  ÐSenateóó,€427€Mass.€1201,€691€N.E.2d€911,€915€(1998).Ð  ð  Ðà ` àThis€liberty€interest€is€protected€both€by€theÐ 0€  Ðsubstantive€component€of€the€Due€Process€Clause,€which€constrainsÐ À Ðgovernmental€interference€with€certain€fundamental€rights€andÐ P  Ðliberty€interests,€and€by€the€procedural€component€of€the€DueÐ à0 ÐProcess€Clause,€which€guarantees€"fair€process."€€òòWashingtonóó€v.Ð pÀ ÐòòGlucksbergóó,€521€U.S.€702,€720€(1997).€€In€this€case,€we€focus€ourÐ P Ðanalysis€primarily€on€the€procedural€aspect,€which€is€most€directlyÐ à Ðimplicated€by€the€facts€presented€here.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€What€is€at€issue€here€isÐ  p Ðthe€right€of€a€parent€to€procedural€due€process€protections€beforeÐ °  Ða€governmental€official€resolves€the€disputed€issue€of€custody€ofÐ @" Ða€child,€when€there€are€known€competing€claims€to€custody.ò òó óÐ Ð $ Ðà ` àDue€process€claims€more€commonly€arise€in€situationsÐ `"°& Ðwhere€state€agency€officials€remove€a€child€from€the€custodialÐ ð#@( Ðparents,€usually€where€there€is€some€suspicion€of€child€abuse€orÐ €%Ð * Ðneglect.€€In€òòSantoskyóó€v.€òòKrameróó,€455€U.S.€745€(1982),€the€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt€held€that€before€a€state€may€sever€the€parent's€rights€inÐ @ Ðtheir€child,€due€process€requires€that€the€state€support€itsÐ Ð  Ðallegations€of€abuse€or€neglect€by€at€least€clear€and€convincingÐ ` ° Ðevidence,€òòid.óó€at€€768„71.€€In€cases€where€the€safety€of€the€childÐ ð @ Ðis€at€risk,€there€are€competing€liberty€interests,€and€so€theÐ € Ð  Ðparents'€rights€are€not€absolute.€€Based€on€this€principle,€we€haveÐ `  Ðfrequently€upheld€immunity€for€state€actors€who€investigate€childÐ  ð  Ðabuse€allegations€and€take€emergency€action€to€protect€a€child.€Ð 0€  ÐòòSeeóó€òòHatchóó,€274€F.3d€12,€20„22,€24„25;€òòDaCostaóó€v.€òòChabotóó,€59€F.3dÐ À Ð279€(1st€Cir.€1995);€òòFrazieróó,€957€F.2d€at€920,€931.Ð P  Ðà ` àGenerally€speaking,€the€question€of€what€process€is€dueÐ à0 Ðinvolves€a€weighing€of€the€different€interests€of€the€child,€theÐ pÀ Ðparents,€and€the€state.€€òòHatchóó,€274€F.3d€at€20;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWelleróó,Ð P Ð901€F.2d€at€395„96€(considering€interests€and€facts€in€case€toÐ à Ðdetermine€what€process€was€due);€òòOpinion€of€the€Justicesóó,€691Ð  p ÐN.E.2d€at€915;€òòCare€&€Prot.€of€Robertóó,€408€Mass.€52,€556€N.E.2dÐ °  Ð993,€996„97€(1990).€€Due€process€protects€a€parent's€rights€evenÐ @" Ðwhen€a€state€temporarily€removes€a€child€before€obtaining€a€courtÐ Ð $ Ðorder,€as€the€state€may€place€a€child€in€temporary€custody€onlyÐ `"°& Ðwhen€it€has€evidence€giving€rise€to€a€suspicion€that€the€child€hasÐ ð#@( Ðbeen€abused€or€is€in€imminent€danger.€€òòHatchóó,€274€F.3d€at€20;€òòseeÐ €%Ð * Ðalsoóó€òòWallisóó€v.€òòSpenceróó,€202€F.3d€1126,€1138€(9th€Cir.€2000);€òòCroftóó,Ð '`", Ð103€F.3d€at€1125.€€Moreover,€due€process€requires€that€some€sort€ofÐ  (ð#. Ðprocess€be€provided€promptly€after€an€emergency€removal.€€"'[I]nÐ 0*€%0 Ðthose€"extra„ordinary€situations"€where€deprivation€of€a€protectedÐ À+'2 Ðinterest€is€permitted€without€prior€process,€the€constitutionalÐ ° Ðrequirements€of€notice€and€an€opportunity€to€be€heard€are€notÐ @ Ðeliminated,€but€merely€postponed.'"€òòWelleróó,€901€F.2d€at€393Ð Ð  Ð(quoting€òòHooksóó,òòóó€771€F.2d€at€942€(quoting€òòDuchesneóó,€566€F.2d€atÐ ` ° Ð826));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrokawóó,€235€F.3d€at€1021;òòóó€òòCampbellóó€v.€òòBurtóó,€141Ð ð @ ÐF.3d€927,€929€(9th€Cir.€1998);€òòJordanóó,€15€F.3d€at€343.€€Both€theÐ € Ð  Ðright€to€predeprivation€process€and€the€right€to€postdeprivationÐ `  Ðprocess€are€at€issue€in€this€case.Ð  ð  Ðà ` àSuboh's€claim€is€that€Officer€Borgioli,€enabled€byÐ 0€  ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€Murphy,€effectively€decided€the€custodyÐ À Ðdispute€by€turning€the€child€over€to€the€Kandys€while€knowing€theÐ P  ÐKandys€were€about€to€leave€the€country€with€the€child;€thus,€heÐ à0 Ðeffectively€deprived€Suboh€of€her€parental€right€to€the€care€andÐ pÀ Ðcustody€of€her€child€without€providing€her€with€due€processÐ P Ðprocedures.€€In€so€doing,€Borgioli€ignored€due€process€proceduresÐ à Ðestablished€by€state€law€to€deal€with€situations€such€as€this€one.€Ð  p ÐThese€include€procedures€for€the€state€to€take€custody€of€a€childÐ °  Ðwhose€guardian€is€unavailable,€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€119,€ðð€23(C)Ð @" Ð(2000),€procedures€for€the€state€to€take€temporary€custody€ofÐ Ð $ Ðchildren€needing€care€and€protection,€òòid.óó€ch.€119,€ðð€24€(2000),Ð `"°& Ðprocedures€for€determining€custody€of€children€born€out€of€wedlock,Ð ð#@( Ðòòid.óó€ch.€209C,€ðð€10€(2000),€and€procedures€for€enforcing€foreignÐ €%Ð * Ðcustody€judgments€within€Massachusetts,€òòid.óó€ch.€209B,€ðð€12€(2000)ò òó ó.€ò òÐ '`", Ðó óYet€Borgioli€short„circuited€all€of€these€procedures€by€decidingÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âthe€issue€on€his€own.€€Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àGenerally,€"there€is€a€presumption€that€fit€parents€actÐ ° Ðâ âin€the€best€interests€of€their€children."€€òòTroxelóó,€530€U.S.€at€68.Ð @ ÐHere,€there€was€no€suspicion€of€child€abuse€or€reason€to€suspectÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€child€would€be€in€imminent€peril,€and€thus€no€reason€toÐ ` ° Ðsever€Suboh's€parental€rights€prior€to€the€state's€resolution€ofÐ ð @ Ðthe€custody€dispute€through€its€normal€procedures.€€òòSeeóó€òòHatchóó,€274Ð € Ð  ÐF.3d€at€20.€€One€of€Suboh's€rights€as€a€mother€was€the€right€toÐ `  Ðchoose€a€proxy€custodian€for€Sofia€following€her€arrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€reÐ  ð  ÐDep't€of€Pub.€Welfareóó,€383€Mass.€573,€421€N.E.2d€28,€34€(1981)Ð 0€  Ð(noting,€in€case€of€incarcerated€mother,€that€mother's€"presumptiveÐ À Ðright€to€custody€of€the€child€includ[es]€the€right€to€choose€aÐ P  Ðcaretaker€proxy").€€Borgioli's€actions€deprived€her€of€this€right.Ð à0 Ðà ` àMoreover,€there€was€evidence€both€that€Suboh€toldÐ pÀ ÐBorgioli€€that€the€Kandys€were€planning€on€leaving€the€jurisdictionÐ P Ðwith€Sofia€within€days€and€that€Borgioli€knew€the€Kandys'€visa€wasÐ à Ðabout€to€expire€and€that€they€had€return€tickets€to€Morocco.€Ð  p ÐBorgioli€therefore€had€reason€to€know€that€Suboh€would€neverÐ °  Ðreceive€any€postdeprivation€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòWelleróó,€901€F.2d€at€396Ð @" Ð("[I]t€is€alleged€that€in€addition€to€depriving€[the€parent]€ofÐ Ð $ Ðcustody€without€a€hearing,€defendants€arranged€for€[the€child]€toÐ `"°& Ðbe€taken€out€of€the€jurisdiction€.€.€.€thereby€reducing€theÐ ð#@( Ðpossibility€of€a€post„deprivation€hearing.");€òòHooksóó,€771€F.2d€atÐ €%Ð * Ð942€("Here€the€children€were€turned€over€.€.€.€allegedly€with€theÐ '`", Ðknowledge€that€they€would€immediately€be€taken€.€.€.€out€of€theÐ  (ð#. Ðjurisdiction€.€.€.,€effectively€eliminating€the€opportunity€forÐ 0*€%0 Ðplaintiff€to€receive€a€post„deprivation€hearing.").ò òó óÐ À+'2 Ðà ` àWe€think€it€plain€that€Suboh€alleges€a€violation€of€aÐ ° Ðconstitutional€right.€€Ð @ ÐòòB.€Clearly€established€at€the€timeóóÐ Ð  Ðà ` àBoth€defendants€say€there€was€sufficient€ambiguity€as€toÐ ` ° Ðthe€scope€of€"familial€integrity"€rights€when€they€acted€in€1998Ð ð @ Ðthat€they€are€entitled€to€immunity€because€the€right€was€notÐ € Ð  Ðclearly€established€at€the€time.€€This€court€has€held€that,€atÐ `  Ðleast€as€of€1992,€"the€dimensions€of€this€right€[to€familialÐ  ð  Ðintegrity]€have€yet€to€be€clearly€established."€€òòFrazieróó,€957€F.2dÐ 0€  Ðat€931.€€Articulating€the€right€as€one€of€"familial€integrity"Ð À Ðcasts€too€broad€a€net.€€The€inquiry€into€whether€a€right€is€clearlyÐ P  Ðestablished€"must€be€undertaken€in€light€of€the€specific€context€ofÐ à0 Ðthe€case,€not€as€a€broad€general€proposition."€€òòSaucieróó,€533€U.S.Ð pÀ Ðat€201;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWilsonóó,€526€U.S.€at€615.€€The€constitutional€rightÐ P Ðat€issue€here€is€the€right€to€procedural€and€substantive€dueÐ à Ðprocess€before€the€state€takes€a€child€away€from€his€or€her€parent.Ð  p Ðà ` àOne€tried€and€true€way€of€determining€whether€this€rightÐ °  Ðwas€clearly€established€at€the€time€the€defendants€acted,€is€to€askÐ @" Ðwhether€existing€case€law€gave€the€defendants€fair€warning€thatÐ Ð $ Ðtheir€conduct€violated€the€plaintiff's€constitutional€rights.€Ð `"°& ÐòòHopeóó,€122€S.€Ct.€at€2522.€€This€inquiry€encompasses€not€onlyÐ ð#@( ÐSupreme€Court€precedent,€but€all€available€case€law.€€òòHatchóó,€274Ð €%Ð * ÐF.3d€at€23.Ð '`", Ðà ` àA€parent's€liberty€interest€in€the€care€and€custody€ofÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âher€child€was€established€long€before€the€facts€of€this€case€arose.€Ð 0*€%0 ÐThe€Supreme€Court€has€noted€that€"[t]he€liberty€interest€.€.€.€ofÐ ° Ðâ âparents€in€the€care,€custody,€and€control€of€their€children€.€.€.Ð @ Ðis€perhaps€the€oldest€of€the€fundamental€liberty€interestsÐ Ð  Ðrecognized€by€this€Court."€€òòTroxelóó,€530€U.S.€at€65.€€Applying€thisÐ ` ° Ðsubstantive€due€process€right€in€òòTroxelóó,€four€members€of€the€CourtÐ ð @ Ðfound€it€unconstitutional€for€a€state€to€fail€to€give€weight€to€aÐ € Ð  Ðcustodial€parentððs€interests€in€determining€the€care€of€herÐ `  Ðchildren€when€adjudicating€a€grandparentððs€contested€petition€forÐ  ð  Ðvisitation€because€the€presumption€is€that€a€fit€parent€will€act€inÐ 0€  Ðtheir€child's€best€interests.€€òòTroxelóó,€530€U.S.€at€70„73€(pluralityÐ À Ðopinion).Ð P  Ðà ` àThe€long„standing€acknowledgment€of€a€substantive€dueÐ à0 Ðprocess€interest€in€familial€integrity,€òòe.g.óó,€òòMeyeróó,€262€U.S.€390,Ð pÀ Ðformed€the€backdrop€for€the€Supreme€Court's€1972€opinion€in€òòStanleyóóÐ P Ðv.€òòIllinoisóó,€405€U.S.€645€(1972),€in€which€the€Court€held€thatÐ à Ðprocedural€due€process€demanded€that€a€parent€be€given€"a€hearingÐ  p Ðon€his€fitness€as€a€parent€before€his€children€were€taken€fromÐ °  Ðhim,"€òòid.óó€at€649.€€This€principle€was€further€developed€by€theÐ @" ÐCourt€in€òòSantoskyóó,€in€which€the€Court€held€that€procedural€dueÐ Ð $ Ðprocess€required€that€a€person's€parental€rights€not€be€terminatedÐ `"°& Ðunless€the€state's€allegations€of€unfitness€were€supported€byÐ ð#@( Ð"clear€and€convincing€evidence."€€455€U.S.€at€769.€€ò òó óTheÐ €%Ð * ÐMassachusetts€Supreme€Judicial€Court€has€long€recognized€parents'Ð '`", Ðrights€to€procedural€due€process€in€cases€in€which€the€stateÐ  (ð#. Ðintervenes€in€the€care€and€custody€of€their€children,€citing€oftenÐ 0*€%0 Ðto€the€òòStanleyóó€and€òòSantoskyóó€decisions.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòOpinion€of€theÐ À+'2 ÐJusticesóó,€691€N.E.2d€at€913;€òòAdoption€of€Eugeneóó,€415€Mass.€431,€614Ð ° ÐN.E.2d€645,€647€(1993);€òòDep't€of€Pub.€Welfareóó€v.€òòJ.K.B.óó,€379€Mass.Ð @ Ð1,€393€N.E.2d€406,€407„08€(1979).€Ð Ð  Ðà ` àWe€have€no€doubt€that€there€is€a€clearly€establishedÐ ` ° Ðconstitutional€right€at€stake,€although€we€have€found€no€caseÐ ð @ Ðexactly€on€all€fours€with€the€facts€of€this€case.€òòóóò òó ó€The€differenceÐ € Ð  Ðin€contexts€in€which€the€right€is€discussed€in€the€case€law€doesÐ `  Ðnot€mean€such€a€right€does€not€exist.€€òòSeeóó€òòHopeóó,€122€S.€Ct.€atÐ  ð  Ð2515„16€(rejecting€requirement€that€facts€of€previous€cases€beÐ 0€  Ð"materially€similar"€to€instant€case€as€an€overly€"rigid€gloss"€on€Ð À Ðqualified€immunity€determinations).€€"[O]fficials€can€still€be€onÐ P  Ðnotice€that€their€conduct€violates€established€law€even€in€novelÐ à0 Ðfactual€circumstances.€.€.€.€[T]he€salient€question€.€.€.€isÐ pÀ Ðwhether€the€state€of€the€law€[at€the€time€of€the€action]€gave€[theÐ P Ðdefendants]€fair€warning€that€their€alleged€treatment€of€[theÐ à Ðplaintiff]€was€unconstitutional."€€òòId.óó€at€2516.Ð  p Ðà ` àAs€the€district€court€stated,€"[i]t€is€clearlyÐ °  Ðestablished€that€a€parent€cannot€be€deprived€of€custody€of€a€childÐ @" Ðabsent€notice€and€a€hearing€unless€there€are€exigent€circumstancesÐ Ð $ Ðof€abuse€or€neglect."€€òòSubohóó,€141€F.€Supp.€2d€at€143€(citing€Ð `"°& ÐòòStanleyóó,€405€U.S.€at€650„57).€€Even€when€there€are€such€exigentÐ ð#@( Ðcircumstances,€there€must€be€an€adequate€post„deprivation€hearingÐ €%Ð * Ðwithin€a€reasonable€time.€€The€cases€discussing€this€right€are€notÐ '`", Ðnew€and€existed€long€before€the€events€in€this€case.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòHooksóó,Ð  (ð#. Ðâ â771€F.2d€at€942;€òòDuchesneóó,€566€F.2d€at€826„28.Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àOur€precedent€in€òòHatchóó€settles€the€matter.€€òòHatchóóÐ ° Ðâ âinvolved€the€standard€(reasonable€suspicion€of€imminent€danger)€byÐ @ Ðwhich€a€state€actor€would€be€justified€in€temporarily€taking€aÐ Ð  Ðchild€from€her€parent€pending€a€hearing.€€274€F.3d€at€23„24.€Ð ` ° ÐòòHatchóó,€decided€in€2001,€found€the€right€clearly€established€by€theÐ ð @ Ðtime€of€the€events€in€question€there,€which€occurred€in€2000.€€OurÐ € Ð  Ðcase€concerns€events€in€May€1998.€€Nonetheless,€òòHatchóó€relied€onÐ `  Ðcases€dating€from€the€early€and€mid€1990s€that€established€dueÐ  ð  Ðprocess€protections€for€even€temporary€removals€of€children€pendingÐ 0€  Ða€due€process€hearing.€€òòId.óó€at€20,€23.Ð À Ðà ` àMoreover,€long€before€the€events€at€issue€in€this€case,Ð P  Ðmany€of€our€sister€circuits€had€articulated€a€constitutional€rightÐ à0 Ðto€procedural€due€process€when€the€state€transfers€custody€from€aÐ pÀ Ðcustodial€parent.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWelleróó,€901€F.2d€at€393,€398€(findingÐ P Ðthat€complete€denial€of€a€hearing€following€emergency€transfer€ofÐ à Ðcustody€violated€due€process);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWooleyóó,€211€F.3d€at€917,Ð  p Ð924€(finding€that€mother's€and€child's€due€process€rights€not€toÐ °  Ðhave€state€deprive€mother€of€custody€absent€court€order€orÐ @" Ðemergency€circumstances€were€clearly€established€in€1995).€€InÐ Ð $ Ðparticular,€the€1985€òòHooksóó€caseòòóó€bears€marked€factual€similaritiesÐ `"°& Ðto€this€case.€€771€F.2d€935.€€In€òòHooksóó,€the€noncustodial€father,Ð ð#@( Ðwho€resided€out€of€state,€informed€the€local€police€of€anÐ €%Ð * Ðoutstanding€warrant€against€the€custodial€mother.€€òòId.óó€at€939.€€TheÐ '`", Ðmother€attempted€to€make€interim€care€arrangements€for€herÐ  (ð#. Ðchildren,€but€the€police€refused€to€allow€her€to€do€so.€€òòId.óó€atÐ 0*€%0 Ð940.€€She€was€released€on€her€own€recognizance€within€a€few€hoursÐ À+'2 Ðof€arrest,€but,€in€the€meantime,€the€police€had€turned€the€childrenÐ ° Ðover€to€her€ex„husband,€who€had€immediately€left€the€state€withÐ @ Ðthem.€€òòId.óó€at€939.€€The€court€held€that€a€transfer€of€custody€thatÐ Ð  Ð"effectively€eliminat[ed]€the€opportunity€for€.€.€.€a€post„Ð ` ° Ðdeprivation€hearing"€violated€the€mother's€due€process€rights.€€òòId.óóÐ ð @ Ðat€942.òòóóÐ € Ð  Ðà ` àIt€follows€from€òòSantoskyóó€and€òòStanleyóó,€reinforced€by€theÐ `  Ðcases€cited€in€òòHatchóó€and€those€from€our€sister€circuits,€that€itÐ  ð  Ðwas€clearly€established€in€1998€that€a€state€official€could€notÐ 0€  Ðeffectively€resolve€a€disputed€custody€issue€between€a€parent€andÐ À Ðanother€without€following€any€due€process€procedures€at€all.€Ð P  ÐDefendants€had€fair€warning€of€the€existence€of€these€rights.€Ð à0 ÐòòHopeóó,€122€S.€Ct.€at€2516.Ð pÀ ÐòòC.€€The€Understanding€of€An€Objectively€Reasonable€OfficeróóÐ P Ðà ` àThe€inquiry€under€the€third€prong€of€the€qualifiedÐ à Ðimmunity€analysis€is€whether€an€objectively€reasonable€officer€inÐ  p Ðthe€defendantððs€position€would€have€understood€his€action€toÐ °  Ðviolate€the€plaintiffððs€rights.€òòóó€òòSeeóó€òòSaucieróó,€533€U.S.€at€205€("IfÐ @" Ðthe€officer's€mistake€as€to€what€the€law€requires€is€reasonableÐ Ð $ Ð...€the€officer€is€entitled€to€the€immunity€defense.");€òòSwainóó,Ð `"°& Ð117€F.3d€at€9„10.€€The€analysis€differs€as€to€Murphy€and€toÐ ð#@( ÐBorgioli.Ð €%Ð * Ðòò1.€€MurphyóóÐ '`", Ðà ` àUnlike€Borgioli,€Murphy€was€not€given€facts€indicatingÐ  (ð#. Ðthat€there€was€any€dispute€over€the€custody€of€the€child.€€Indeed,Ð 0*€%0 ÐMurphyððs€only€information€on€this€point,€from€Borgioli,€was€thatÐ À+'2 Ðthe€Kandys€were€the€childððs€lawful€custodians.€€These€facts€aloneÐ ° Ðwould€seem€to€mandate€that€Murphy€be€given€qualified€immunity.€€ItÐ @ Ðis€not€material€that€Borgioli's€and€Murphy's€memories€diverged€overÐ Ð  Ðwhether€there€was€any€discussion€of€whether€to€release€the€child€toÐ ` ° Ðthe€Kandys.€Ð ð @ Ðà ` àSuboh€makes€two€arguments€in€response.€€First,€Suboh€saysÐ € Ð  ÐMurphy€had€no€legal€authority€to€release€the€child.€€Second,€SubohÐ `  Ðsays€that€Murphy€was€negligent€in€not€determining€whether€there€wasÐ  ð  Ða€custody€dispute€between€Suboh€and€the€Kandys.€€Neither€argumentÐ 0€  Ðhas€merit.Ð À Ðà ` àFirst,€the€claim€as€to€which€immunity€is€sought€is€aÐ P  Ðfederal€constitutional€claim,€brought€under€ðð€1983,€not€a€state€lawÐ à0 Ðclaim€about€an€individual€exceeding€his€authority.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðconstitutional€claim€does€not€turn€on€the€scope€of€the€authority€ofÐ P Ðthe€Assistant€District€Attorney.€€Whether€or€not€he€had€authority,Ð à Ðhe€simply€did€not€know€there€was€a€custody€dispute.Ð  p Ðà ` àSuboh's€second€argument€assumes€that€there€was€some€factÐ °  Ðthat€should€have€put€Murphy€on€inquiry€notice€that€there€was€aÐ @" Ðcustody€dispute.€€The€facts€alleged€here€concerning€Murphy'sÐ Ð $ Ðinvolvement€in€the€matter€would€not€put€a€reasonable€prosecutor€onÐ `"°& Ðsuch€notice.Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àThe€district€court€denied€immunity€to€Murphy€on€the€basisÐ €%Ð * Ðthat€Murphy€may€have€given€Borgioli€legal€advice€about€whether€heÐ '`", Ðcould€turn€custody€of€the€child€over€to€the€Kandys.€€The€record€isÐ  (ð#. Ðclear€that€Murphy€did€not€know€that€there€was€a€custody€disputeÐ 0*€%0 Ðand,€indeed,€implicitly€was€told€custody€was€not€in€dispute.€€GivenÐ À+'2 Ðthese€facts,€we€cannot€say€it€was€unreasonable€for€Murphy€to€acedeÐ ° Ðto€Borgioli's€suggestion€that€the€child€be€returned€to€individualsÐ @ Ðthat€Murphy€was€told€were€her€legal€guardians.€€The€districtÐ Ð  Ðcourtððs€conclusion€cannot€stand.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€theÐ ` ° Ðdistrict€court;€Murphy€is€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€on€theÐ ð @ Ððð1983€claim.Ð € Ð  Ðò òó óòò2.€€BorgiolióóÐ `  Ðà ` àBorgioli,€in€contrast,€knew€that€there€was€a€custodyÐ  ð  Ðdispute€from€his€interrogation€of€Suboh€and€knew€that€Suboh€hadÐ 0€  Ðdocuments€that€she€said€supported€her€claim€to€custody.€€Suboh€hadÐ À Ðshown€him€a€birth€certificate€that€showed€her€as€the€birth€parent,Ð P  Ðas€well€as€various€other€documents€that€supported€her€claims.€Ð à0 ÐSuboh€had€also€told€him€that€the€documentation€shown€by€the€KandysÐ pÀ Ðwas€forged€and€that€the€Kandys€had€lied€to€him.€€He€knew€that€theÐ P ÐKandys€had€given€the€police€inconsistent€information€about€who€theÐ à Ðbirth€mother€was.Ð  p Ðà ` àBorgioli€argues€that€it€was€factually€reasonable€for€himÐ °  Ðto€release€the€child€to€the€Kandys€even€if€a€clearly€establishedÐ @" Ðright€was€involved.€€In€essence€he€makes€three€arguments.€€First,Ð Ð $ Ðhe€argues€that€the€facts€as€he€knew€them€indicated€that€the€KandysÐ `"°& Ðwere€Sofiaððs€custodians.€€Second,€he€argues€that€he€had€probableÐ ð#@( Ðcause€to€arrest€Suboh€and€her€husband€for€kidnapping€and€that€wasÐ €%Ð * Ðenough€to€justify€his€release€of€the€child.€€Third,€Borgioli€arguesÐ '`", Ðthat€ADA€Murphy€agreed€to€releasing€the€child€to€the€Kandys,€andÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âthat€immunizes€him.€€We€take€each€argument€in€turn.Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àWe,€like€the€district€court,€think€that€no€reasonableÐ ° Ðâ âofficer€could€have€concluded€on€the€facts€before€him€that€theÐ @ ÐKandys€had€undisputed€custody€of€the€child,€despite€Suboh's€claims,Ð Ð  Ðand€so€no€process€of€any€sort€was€due€before€the€child€could€beÐ ` ° Ðreleased€to€the€Kandys.€€Suboh€repeatedly€told€him€that€she€was€theÐ ð @ Ðbiological€mother€of€Sofia,€which€directly€conflicted€with€theÐ € Ð  Ðinformation€provided€by€the€Kandys,€who€at€times€said€they€were€theÐ `  Ðbiological€parents€and€had€provided€a€birth€certificate€indicatingÐ  ð  Ðthat€they€were€the€biological€parents.€€Suboh€also€providedÐ 0€  Ðdocumentation€that€was€obviously€different€from€the€documentationÐ À Ðprovided€by€the€Kandys€and€which€she€said€supported€her€claim€ofÐ P  Ðcustody.€€Suboh€told€him€that€the€Kandys'€custodial€documents€wereÐ à0 Ðforged.€€No€objectively€reasonable€officer€could€immediatelyÐ pÀ Ðconclude€that€the€Kandys'€documents€were€valid€and€Suboh'sÐ P Ðdocuments€were€forged,€or€that€there€was€no€custody€dispute.€€Ð à Ðà ` àBorgioli€also€failed€to€pursue€reasonable€avenues€ofÐ  p Ðinvestigation€to€determine€whether€Suboh's€claims€were€true,€suchÐ °  Ðas€having€her€documents€translated€from€Dutch,€French,€and€Arabic,Ð @" Ðò òó óor€calling€the€embassies,€as€Suboh€requested.€€òòSeeóó€òòWallisóó,€202€F.3dÐ Ð $ Ðat€1138€(police€should€pursue€"reasonable€avenues€ofÐ `"°& Ðinvestigation,"€within€circumstances€of€case,€before€removingÐ ð#@( Ðchildren€from€parents'€custody).€€It€is€also€relevant€that€theÐ €%Ð * ÐKandys'€documentation,€even€if€valid,€did€not€give€the€policeÐ '`", Ðauthority€to€effect€a€transfer€of€custody,€òòseeóó€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€€ch.Ð  (ð#. Ð209B,€ðð€12ò òó ó€(setting€forth€rules€for€filing€and€enforcing€custodyÐ 0*€%0 Ðjudgments€of€foreign€states€in€Massachusetts);€òòWooleyóó,€211€F.3d€atÐ À+'2 Ð926€(it€was€not€objectively€reasonable€for€police€officer€to€relyÐ ° Ðon€court€custody€order€to€transfer€custody€when€state€law€requiredÐ @ Ða€civil€warrant).ò òó óÐ Ð  Ðà ` àWe€also€reject€Borgioli's€argument€that€the€probableÐ ` ° Ðcause€determination€as€to€the€kidnapping€charges€entitles€aÐ ð @ Ðreasonable€officer€to€make€a€conclusive€determination€of€a€disputedÐ € Ð  Ðcustody€matter.€€The€threshold€for€probable€cause€in€a€criminalÐ `  Ðcase€is€low,€as€Borgioli€certainly€must€know.€€"[P]robable€causeÐ  ð  Ðexists€when€'the€facts€and€circumstances€within€[the€policeÐ 0€  Ðofficerððs]€knowledge€and€of€which€they€had€reasonably€trustworthyÐ À Ðinformation€were€sufficient€to€warrant€a€prudent€[person]€inÐ P  Ðbelieving€that€the€[defendant]€had€committed€or€was€committing€anÐ à0 Ðoffense.'"€€òòRiveraóó€v.€òòMurphyóó,€979€F.2d€259,€263€(1st€Cir.€1992)Ð pÀ Ð(quoting€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòFigueroaóó,€818€F.2d€1020,€1023€(1st€Cir.Ð P Ð1987)€(quoting€òòBeckóó€v.€òòOhioóó,€379€U.S.€89,€91€(1964))€(internalÐ à Ðquotation€marks€omitted).€€That€there€is€probable€cause€that€aÐ  p Ðcrime€has€been€committed€is€not€a€determination€on€the€merits€thatÐ °  Ða€crime€was€committed:€an€arrest€is€not€a€conviction.€€Indeed,€inÐ @" Ðorder€to€prove€kidnapping€by€a€relative,€as€Borgioli€must€haveÐ Ð $ Ðknown,€the€state€would€have€had€to€show€that€Suboh€did€not€haveÐ `"°& Ðcustody€of€the€child.€€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€265,€ðð€26A€(2000).€€AsÐ ð#@( Ða€matter€of€law,€mere€probable€cause€for€arrest€on€kidnappingÐ €%Ð * Ðcharges€of€a€person€claiming€custody€is€not€a€sufficient€basis€onÐ '`", Ðwhich€to€determine€a€custody€dispute,€nor€is€an€arresting€policeÐ  (ð#. Ðofficer€the€correct€person€to€be€making€such€a€determination.€Ð 0*€%0 ÐòòCompareóó€òòRiveraóó,€979€F.2d€at€263€(articulating€standard€for€probableÐ À+'2 Ðcause),€òòwithóó€òòSantoskyóó,€455€U.S.€745€(articulating€standard€forÐ ° Ðpermanent€deprivation€of€parental€rights).€€While€aòòóó€òòtemporaryóóÐ @ Ðòòemergencyóó€transfer€of€custody€may€issue€on€the€basis€of€"reasonableÐ Ð  Ðcause"€to€believe€that€a€child€is€in€òòdanger€of€abuse€or€neglectóó,Ð ` ° Ðòòseeóó€òòCare€&€Prot.€of€Robertóó,€556€N.E.2d€at€995„96,€that€is€a€far€cryÐ ð @ Ðfrom€a€police€officer€making€a€custody€decision€that€is€effectivelyÐ € Ð  Ðnonreversible€on€the€basis€of€probable€cause€for€arrest€forÐ `  Ðkidnapping€by€a€relative.€€The€probable€cause€argument€worksÐ  ð  Ðagainst€Borgioli,€not€for€him.€€A€reasonable€officer€could€not€viewÐ 0€  Ðcause€for€arrest€as€the€extent€of€the€process€due€before€usurpingÐ À Ðthe€parent's€right€to€the€care€and€custody€of€her€child.Ð P  Ðà ` àBorgioliððs€reliance€on€Murphy€does€not€help€him.€Ð à0 ÐAlthough€Borgioli€had€facts€before€him€that€there€was€a€keenlyÐ pÀ Ðdisputed€custody€issue,€he€refrained€from€telling€Murphy€about€thatÐ P Ðdispute.€€A€reasonable€officer€would€not€rely€on€a€districtÐ à Ðattorney's€assent,€when€he€knew€the€district€attorney€had€not€beenÐ  p Ðgiven€the€material€information.€€òòCf.óó€òòRodriquesóó€v.€òòFurtadoóó,€950€F.2dÐ °  Ð805,€812€(1st€Cir.€1991)€(there€is€no€qualified€immunity€if€policeÐ @" Ðofficer€was€"constitutionally€negligent"€and€knew€that€factsÐ Ð $ Ðsubmitted€in€search€warrant€affidavit€were€insufficient€toÐ `"°& Ðestablish€probable€cause).Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àOn€the€facts€alleged€by€Suboh,€Borgioli's€actions€wereÐ €%Ð * Ðnot€on€the€"hazy€border"€between€acceptable€and€unacceptableÐ '`", Ðbehavior.€€òòSaucieróó,€533€U.S.€at€206€(quoting€òòPriesteróó€v.€òòCity€ofÐ  (ð#. ÐRiviera€Beachóó,€208€F.3d€919,€926€(11th€Cir.€2000))€(internalÐ 0*€%0 Ðquotation€marks€omitted).€€Whatever€the€exact€contours€of€the€rightÐ À+'2 Ðto€due€process€in€the€context€of€child€removals€in€otherÐ ° Ðcircumstances,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€€òòFrazieróó,€957€F.2d€at€931,€this€caseÐ @ Ðfalls€well€within€the€area€of€clarity.€€Borgioli€cannot€prevail€onÐ Ð  Ðqualified€immunity€at€the€summary€judgment€stage.€€Ð ` ° ÐÓ  ÓIV.òòÐ ð @ ÐÓÍÓPendent€JurisdictionóóÐ € Ð  Ðà ` àDefendants€ask€us€to€take€jurisdiction€over€their€appealsÐ `  Ðfrom€the€denial€of€qualified€immunity€on€the€Massachusetts€CivilÐ  ð  ÐRights€Act€claim€against€Borgioliò òó ó,€the€denial€of€immunity€on€theÐ 0€  ÐMassachusetts€Torts€Claims€Act€claims€against€the€DistrictÐ À ÐAttorney's€office,€and€the€denial€of€summary€judgment€on€state€tortÐ P  Ðclaims€against€Murphy.ò òó ó€€Generally,€interlocutory€review€of€aÐ à0 Ðdecision€denying€qualified€immunity€under€ðð€1983€"does€not€in€andÐ pÀ Ðof€itself€confer€jurisdiction€over€other€contested€issues€in€theÐ P Ðcase."€€òòRoque„Rodriguezóó€v.€òòLema€Moyaóó,€926€F.2d€103,€105€&€n.2€(1stÐ à ÐCir.€1991).€€In€order€for€the€court€to€exercise€pendentÐ  p Ðjurisdiction,€the€party€seeking€jurisdiction€must€show€that€theÐ °  Ðissues€are€"inextricably€intertwined€with€[the€district]€courtððsÐ @" Ðdecision€to€deny€the€individual€defendants'€qualified€immunityÐ Ð $ Ðmotions,€or€that€review€of€the€[decision€for€which€pendentÐ `"°& Ðjurisdiction€is€sought]€was€necessary€to€ensure€meaningful€reviewÐ ð#@( Ðof€the€[qualified€immunity€decision]."€€òòSwintóó€v.€òòChambers€CountyÐ €%Ð * ÐCommððnóó,€514€U.S.€35,€51€(1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòFletcheróó€v.€òòTown€ofÐ '`", ÐClintonóó,€196€F.3d€41,€55„56€(1st€Cir.€1999).€€We€have€thoroughlyÐ  (ð#. Ðreviewed€the€qualified€immunity€decision€of€the€trial€court€withoutÐ 0*€%0 Ðany€need€to€touch€on€the€pendent€claims.€€Consequently,€there€is€noÐ À+'2 Ðpendent€appellate€jurisdiction€here.€€That€said,€however,€we€fullyÐ ° Ðexpect€that€the€district€court,€either€sua€sponte€or€upon€timelyÐ @ Ðrequest,€will€reevaluate€its€earlier€rulings€in€light€of€thisÐ Ð  Ðopinion.Ð ` ° ÐòòConclusionóóÐ ð @ Ðà ` àThe€denial€of€summary€judgment€as€to€Murphy€is€òòreversedóóÐ € Ð  Ðand€the€claim€against€him€under€ðð€1983€is€ordered€dismissed€onÐ `  Ðqualified€immunity€grounds.€€The€denial€of€summary€judgment€as€toÐ  ð  ÐBorgioli's€claim€of€qualified€immunity€is€òòaffirmedóó.€òòóó€No€costs€areÐ 0€  Ðawarded.€€òòSo€ordered.óó€