Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/387

 502us1$18Z 08-21-96 15:27:37 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 224 (1991)

229

Stevens, J., dissenting

agents nevertheless would be entitled to qualified immunity because their decision was reasonable, even if mistaken. Anderson, supra, at 641. The qualified immunity standard “gives ample room for mistaken judgments” by protecting “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley, supra, at 343, 341. This accommodation for reasonable error exists because “officials should not err always on the side of caution” because they fear being sued. Davis, supra, at 196. Our national experience has taught that this principle is nowhere more important than when the specter of Presidential assassination is raised. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment. In my view the Ninth Circuit’s opinion purported to apply the standard for summary judgment that today’s opinion demands. Its error was in finding, on the facts before it, that the standard was not met. Since I think it worthwhile to establish that this Court will not let such a mistake stand with respect to those who guard the life of the President, I concur in the summary reversal. Justice Stevens, dissenting. The question in this case is not whether a reasonable officer could have believed that respondent posed a threat to the life of the President. Those “who guard the life of the President,” ante this page (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), properly rely on the slightest bits of evidence—noth-