What is necessary for an official to establish a qualified immunity defense?

To establish a qualified immunity defense, it is necessary to demonstrate that the official acted in good faith while performing their duties. This concept is rooted in the legal principle that public officials, such as law enforcement officers or corrections personnel, should not be held liable for actions taken in the course of their official duties if those actions were reasonable and intended to uphold the law.

Good faith implies that the official believed their actions to be lawful at the time, and that they did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. If an official can prove that their actions were carried out in good faith, they can effectively argue for qualified immunity, thereby shielding themselves from personal liability.

The other options do not directly contribute to establishing a qualified immunity defense. For instance, an opinion from a peer doesn't provide the necessary legal basis; documentation of previous conduct may offer context but does not establish whether the current actions were in good faith; and a judgment from a higher court could provide authoritative perspective but does not substitute for evidence of the specific actions taken by the official in question. Good faith remains the central tenet in the assessment of qualified immunity.