1. In deciding whether qualified immunity applies, the court is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Is it appropriate, however, for a reviewing court to use that standard to limit the facts considered, and not consider all the facts, when determining whether qualified immunity applies?

2. Is a peace officer entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 where no binding authority at the time of the incident had clearly established a constitutional violation by any officers acting under similar factual circumstances?

Whether a reviewing court should limit the facts considered when determining qualified immunity