Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v1fo60$3u7am$4@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
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: <v1fo60$3u7am$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v1aos9$2jt8a$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-FF5B22.12512006052024@news.giganews.com>
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" <ahk@chinet.com> 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!