Which factor is NOT part of the two-part test for qualified immunity?

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government officials from liability for civil damages, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The two-part test for qualified immunity examines whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff demonstrate that the officer’s actions weren’t reasonable under the specific circumstances, and whether those actions violated a clearly established right.

The first part of the test focuses on whether a reasonable officer would have acted similarly under the same circumstances. This aspect assesses the actions of the officer in light of the information they had at the time.

The second part requires identifying whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the officer's conduct, meaning that a reasonable officer would understand that their actions were in violation of that right.

In this context, the factor that is not included in the two-part test for qualified immunity is the evidence of intent to violate rights. While intent may be relevant in some legal contexts, qualified immunity does not depend on proving an officer's intent to violate rights. Instead, it focuses on the reasonableness of the officer's conduct and whether that conduct violated an established right. This distinction is crucial for understanding how qualified immunity operates and clarifies why intent is not part of the