context: However, neither, the Supreme Court nor this court has adopted the "continuing seizure" doctrine. Thus, even if we assume that being "subject to the authority of the [court]" constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure, defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the particularized right alleged -- the right to be free from a "continuing seizure" by virtue of a pending criminal charge -- is not clearly established.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: "[Existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate."
citation_a.sentence: See Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012) (“[Existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”); see also Williams v. Crosby, 43 F.Supp.3d 794, 805 (ND.Ohio 2014) (“Far from being clearly established in September 2012, this point of law [regarding “continuing seizures” and malicious-prosecution claims] was (and remains) expressly unsettled in this Circuit.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 43 F.Supp.3d 794, 805
citation_b.parenthetical: "Far from being clearly established in September 2012, this point of law [regarding "continuing seizures" and malicious-prosecution claims] was (and remains) expressly unsettled in this Circuit."
citation_b.sentence: See Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012) (“[Existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”); see also Williams v. Crosby, 43 F.Supp.3d 794, 805 (ND.Ohio 2014) (“Far from being clearly established in September 2012, this point of law [regarding “continuing seizures” and malicious-prosecution claims] was (and remains) expressly unsettled in this Circuit.”).