1. This Court has repeatedly instructed the lower courts that in determining whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity prior decisions must have defined the right with a high degree of specificity. Here, the Sixth Circuit identified the controlling rule to be that officers "may not detain a driver for longer than necessary to complete a traffic stop simply because they want to investigate other crimes." Did the Sixth Circuit define the right at too high a level of generality?

2. As part of a lawful traffic stop, Deputies Wilkey and McRae observed that Klaver had unlawfully tinted windows, unlawfully placed a sticker on his license plate, was visibly shaking, refused to explain why he was shaking, and was generally uncooperative. In denying qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit did not cite a case with comparable facts. Did the Sixth Circuit err in holding that Deputies Wilkey and McRae are not entitled to qualified immunity?

Whether the Sixth Circuit defined the right at too high a level of generality