3 ms·
From the article, I took the court's final decision as "nobody said you couldn't, but we're saying it now, so don't get caught doing it again". Despite the four
by axus 2y ago
From the article, I took the court's final decision as "nobody said you couldn't, but we're saying it now, so don't get caught doing it again".
Despite the fourth amendment clearly saying they couldn't.
- UncleMeat 2y agoThis is how QI cases work nowadays. The problem is that you only need a teeny tiny difference in facts for the prior situation to not count and for QI to be granted. "Oh, we've only found that shooting a kid within state borders is a violation of rights and this time the cop shot a kid across state borders so they clearly can't be expected to know that this is a violation of rights: QI granted." The net effect is that it is remarkably difficult to sue cops who violate your rights since there is almost always going to be some minor factual thing that makes your case "unique".