Class 4 Assignment:1. The US Supreme Court in Maryland v Wilson held that upon a valid traffic stop, a police officer may order the driver as well as passengers to step out and perform a protective frisk of all. The Supreme Court of State X, however, has held such search of passengers to be unlawful under the State’sconstitution. Deputy Barney Fife is aware of the US Supreme Court holding, however unaware that his own State Supreme Court prohibits such course of action. As a consequence, a disgruntled passenger whom he frisked sues him under Section 1983. Will the doctrine of qualified immunity protect Fife? Explain your answer. (3 points)2. Prosecutor Hamilton Burger assists police officers to plan a takedown. Following the entry and arrest, the state district judge rules that the entry violated the US and State constitutions. Is Prosecutor Burger entitled to absolute immunity? Explain why or why not. (2 points)3. Massachusetts Drug enforcement agents Hammer, and Spenser used several warrantless GPS devices to track several vehicles, ultimately busting a large drug trafficking ring. After the successful operative, the US Supreme Court held that a judicial order was required for GPS tracking. Consequently, a Massachusetts state judge suppressed all the evidence and dismissed the charges against all defendants. In turn, Hammer and Spenser are sued in federal court for civil rights violations. Both raise the qualified immunity defense, arguing that at the time they placed the several GPS devices the law was not “clearly established”. Are Hammer and Spenser correct? Discuss and explain your answer. (5 points)(TOTAL 10 POINTS)