In reaching this decision, the Court applied the test specified in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982). The Harlow standard states that government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages only when the official's conduct does not violate 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' The Court's goal in 'Harlow' was to resolve many insubstantial claims against government officials by doing away with the subjective good faith element and relying on the 'objective reasonableness' of the official's conduct measured by reference to established law. The Malley ruling states that 'only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable, will the shield of immunity be lost.' This indicates the Court does not require superior knowledge of the law but requires a standard of professional knowledge to which an officer can realistically adhere. 69 footnotes.