Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 16:41:40 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit police couldn't have known to check address before raid References: User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 09:50:55 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 35 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-b67dsiBfnikLDuSdz+Q5+gFpkhpzHY2X0HtGYJh5Zy9QfbK0d6AAtlC8edtpWhm+Vdg6NRDBX+7pdqU!IIuQ9jYpYlU28nZfdO7FrISUPTDkJ33Xi1bYjxJIp8NsT2YUU/fJSyBHkQg3dhKpIONxG/XJf5sB!CPQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 2595 In article , Ubiquitous wrote: > 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. There's no good reason the government should have a free pass to violate your rights just so long as no one has violated them in that precise manner in the past.