In Guider v. Smith, 431 Mich 559, 565; 431 NW2d 810 (1988), the Supreme Court of Michigan held that the test announced in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800; 102 S Ct 2727; 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982), was the proper test regarding claims of qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983 actions. Under this test, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to immunity from damages "insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Guider, supra at 565. In determining if there is qualified immunity, a court must consider: whether the alleged conduct establishes a constitutional violation; whether the constitutional standard was clearly established at the time in question. If the undisputed facts show that the defendant's conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law." Guider, supra at 568. Assuming, however, that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, "the next inquiry under the Harlow standard is whether a reasonable man in the defendant's position could have believed his actions were consistent with the law." Guider, supra at 570.