4 ms·

>Roberts noted she would still have to prove the police action was unreasonable That this lawsuit hasn't already shown that the action was unreasonable makes m

>Roberts noted she would still have to prove the police action was unreasonable That this lawsuit hasn't already shown that the action was unreasonable makes me think it was intentionally designed to test this issue in the Supreme Court, which my cynical nature makes me think there's some unseen consequence of this ruling.

duxup 6y ago
>That this lawsuit hasn't already shown Well the lawsuit wasn't able to proceed because they were told they could not sue based on the 4 the amendment...so yeah they couldn't possibly prove "shown" anything legally yet. Now they can proceed.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  And now they can make the argument that the lawsuit is invalid as the action was reasonable. The order these challenges were made is suspect, they didn't have to address this issue first.
  - adgjlsfhk1 6y ago
    That's not how this works. The state moved to dismiss on one set of grounds. That dismissal was granted by the lower court. From there, the case can't proceed until those grounds are settled. This type of thing is very common. It's exactly the same as why standing is established before evidence in civil cases.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    The case was dismissed with a summary judgement, which is one of the earliest points a case can be dismissed. Arguing that the action was unreasonable is highly fact specific, and so cannot be done in summary judgement. In contrast, arguing that no seizure occured requires to finding of fact, because there was no dispute of any relevent fact, and so is done first.
  - duxup 6y ago
    It's not suspect, I think you just don't understand how things played out. If the basis of the lawsuit (in this case the 4th amendment) is wrong, then they should throw the case out at that point. SCOTUS's job is to determine if the basis for the lawsuit is constitutional or not, they don't determine the facts of the case or anything like that, just if they can sue under the 4th amendment or not. They decided that yes they can. Now the case can proceeded. This isn't unusual in any way.
betwixthewires 6y ago
There is, a big consequence. There is now precedent that attempted seizure qualifies as a violation of ones rights if it is unreasonable.

duxup 6y ago

>That this lawsuit hasn't already shown Well the lawsuit wasn't able to proceed because they were told they could not sue based on the 4 the amendment...so yeah they couldn't possibly prove "shown" anything legally yet. Now they can proceed.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
And now they can make the argument that the lawsuit is invalid as the action was reasonable. The order these challenges were made is suspect, they didn't have to address this issue first.
- adgjlsfhk1 6y ago
  That's not how this works. The state moved to dismiss on one set of grounds. That dismissal was granted by the lower court. From there, the case can't proceed until those grounds are settled. This type of thing is very common. It's exactly the same as why standing is established before evidence in civil cases.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- gizmo686 6y ago
  The case was dismissed with a summary judgement, which is one of the earliest points a case can be dismissed. Arguing that the action was unreasonable is highly fact specific, and so cannot be done in summary judgement. In contrast, arguing that no seizure occured requires to finding of fact, because there was no dispute of any relevent fact, and so is done first.
- duxup 6y ago
  It's not suspect, I think you just don't understand how things played out. If the basis of the lawsuit (in this case the 4th amendment) is wrong, then they should throw the case out at that point. SCOTUS's job is to determine if the basis for the lawsuit is constitutional or not, they don't determine the facts of the case or anything like that, just if they can sue under the 4th amendment or not. They decided that yes they can. Now the case can proceeded. This isn't unusual in any way.

betwixthewires 6y ago

There is, a big consequence. There is now precedent that attempted seizure qualifies as a violation of ones rights if it is unreasonable.