In Pearson v. Callahan (555 U.S. 223 [2009]), the Supreme Court reconsidered the procedure required in Saucier and concluded that, while the sequence set forth therein is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory. Judges "should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand" (Pearson, 129 S Ct at 818).