Whether prior precedent is possible or not really shouldn't be the issue. Such a standard itself is the problem: if your rights are violated in a legally novel

Whether prior precedent is possible or not really shouldn't be the issue. Such a standard itself is the problem: if your rights are violated in a legally novel way, why do courts pre-judge such a case against the victim? Sure, precedent matters, but when a legally new situation arises (a distinction which might be different than what a reasonable layperson would consider "new"), it seems the more morally correct approach is to hear the case and set precedent. Courts do that all the time in other matters so this distinction in judging government agent's actions is particularly absurd.