Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ubiquitous Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit police couldn't have known to check address before raid Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 04:30:43 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 13:37:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7f6b17e78db339696d0ec5fd1961138c"; logging-data="4136278"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19R544IblM/Ud0KwByt9udpwSWGzLyVypw=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:9d05N8l7x6Sm+++mmB56UUKyNh0= X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.12N (x86 32bit) Bytes: 2165 atropos@mac.com wrote: > "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >> Steve Lehto video >> >> In a bad SWAT raid in 2019 at the wrong location, the 5th Circuit ruled >> that the SWAT team commander couldn't have known he had the correct house >> before ordering a raid on the wrong house. >> >> Seriously? Some of us learned how to read an address as very young >> children. >> >> Three-judge panel ruled that there was a 4th Amendment violation but >> the SWAT commander is still immune. There's even a case called Maryland >> v. Garrison in which the Supreme Court ruled that police must make a >> reasonable effort to determine that they are at the right location >> before exercising the warrant but that case didn't make it absolutely >> clear that it applied to the facts of this case. >> >> Huh? > >Now that SCOTUS has shit-canned Roe, maybe they can do the same to >qualified immunity. It's the most ridiculous legal concept imaginable: >"You have a constitutional right to X. We agree the cops violated that >right. But since that right has never been violated in this exact same >way before, you have no remedy for the violation of your right." That would be a _very_ bad idea. -- Let's go Brandon!