A.N. v. Alamogordo Police Department, 928 F.3d 1191

In 2017 APD arrested 16-year-old A.N.; state law (New Mexico Children’s Code) makes juvenile arrest/delinquency records confidential for persons under 18.
Four days after A.N.’s arrest APD issued a news release naming A.N., stating her age, charge, and including her booking photo; APD posted it on Facebook and provided it to media; the post was widely shared.
A.N.’s mother complained; APD initially defended the release then removed A.N.’s information after counsel demanded removal; media copies remained online.
Plaintiffs (A.N. and her mother) sued APD and individual officers under § 1983 (equal protection), state-law confidentiality statutes, due process claims, and tort claims; they alleged APD treated older juveniles (16–17) differently than younger juveniles by disclosing their information.
Defendants moved to dismiss the § 1983 equal protection claim against them in their individual capacities on qualified immunity grounds; the district court denied qualified immunity as to the equal protection claim and defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity at Rule 12(b)(6) stage	Denial raises a legal question whether right was clearly established; review proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291	Denial implicates mixed facts/law and thus not reviewable	Court had jurisdiction because question whether a right was clearly established is a pure legal issue reviewable on interlocutory appeal
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for disclosing A.N.’s confidential juvenile records	Plaintiffs: the intentional, arbitrary disclosure of older juveniles but not younger ones violates equal protection; law clearly established such differential treatment is unlawful	Defendants: law not clearly established—no Supreme Court/Tenth Circuit decision on point about disclosing older juvenile arrest info while withholding younger juveniles’ info; rule is too general	Court held equal protection rule (no intentional arbitrary differential treatment of similarly situated persons) was clearly established and applied with obvious clarity here; qualified immunity denied

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (sets qualified immunity two-step framework)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (cautions against defining clearly established law at high level of generality)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (requires particularized clearly established law but acknowledges general rules can apply)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (general constitutional statements can give fair and clear warning)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (clarifies when a general rule can provide notice)
Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (explains when unlawfulness follows immediately from established rules)
Halley v. Huckaby, 902 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir.) (applied general-rule clarity for qualified immunity)
Olech v. Village of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (equal protection "class of one"/treatment alike principle)
Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.) (applies equal protection to disparate juvenile classifications)