I think this is a GD since there is no factual answer and it’s not IMHO since it is not a current legal issue I’m facing.
Qualified immunity is partly based on “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known”. So let’s say an office stops me for mopery in the third degree. I show the officer that CRS 12-3-45 clearly states mopery is only a crime during weekdays (and it is Saturday). I also show him the court opinion Dingus v Dorkus that states a person weraing business shoes (like I am) is not committing mopery. Is it now the case that Officer Bimbeau should reasonably known the law and thus when he arrests me, he has lost his qualified immunity protection?
Did you also show him CRS 4-12-14.2a stating mopery with 500 ft. of a school or church is illegal every day of the week, and a copy of the federal district court ruling that established a set of guidelines for determining whether shoes are qualified as business shoes? It is not quite so simple to determine that Officer Bimbeau knew the law and that it was clear based only on materials you provided.
You’re screwed.