In Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court mandated a two-step sequence for resolving a qualified immunity claim: the "constitutional inquiry" and the "qualified immunity inquiry." As a threshold matter, the court inquires whether, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right" (id.). If so, a court would then turn to the "qualified immunity inquiry" and ask if the right was clearly established at the relevant time so that a reasonable officer would understand that his actions would violate that right (id. at 201-202).