Today, the Tenth Circuit decided that officers engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" were entitled to qualified immunity, but that the City could still be sued. Lynch v. Barrett. I've included some of the pertinent language on the backward looking access claim below: The foregoing discussion makes apparent the point. At least in the Tenth Circuit, the question of whether an evidentiary cover-up by police officials may violate an individual's constitutional right to court access was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. A reasonable officer might not have understood what Defendant Officers did (or refused to do) violated that right. "[I]n the light of pre-existing law," the unconstitutionality of Defendant Officers' misfeasance simply was not clear. Hope, 536 U.S. at 739. In other words, whether the scope of the right to access extended as far as Plaintiff claims was "far from obvious." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 237. What is obvious is that such right as defined by Plaintiff was not clearly established. Assuming the truth of Plaintiff's version of events, Defendant Officers' conduct is inexcusable. "But that we are 'morally outraged' . . . by the alleged conduct . . . does not mean necessarily that the offic[ers] should have realized that it violated a constitutional right of access." Foster, 28 F.3d at 430. Because Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's right to access claim based on the absence of clearly established law recognizing such right, we reverse the district court's decision denying them the same. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director and General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1440 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 202-466-5424 x7110 Direct: 202-742-1016 Cell: 240-876-6790