The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Rubber stamps, pole cameras, and personal vendettas.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that Customs and Border Protection officers have de facto absolute immunity from constitutional claims for damages. But the ruling leaves the door open ever so slightly to Fourth Amendment claims against federal officers doing domestic policing unrelated to the border or national security. The fate of a pair of pending IJ cert petitions will shed more light on that. They involve an officer who fabricated a sex-trafficking scheme and had our wholly innocent, then-teenage client imprisoned for several years and another officer who went rogue, tried to shoot our client in the head, and used his authority to have our client detained. Click here to read our just-filed supplemental brief.
- A federal statute prohibits the FDA from changing the definition of "butter." Which, say the appellants, means the FDA's prohibition of the interstate sale of unpasteurized butter is unlawful! D.C. Circuit: It's still butter, guys. It's just illegal butter.
- Environmental group sues the Secretary of Commerce, alleging that government regulations designed to reduce the accidental bycatch of dusky sharks won't achieve its goals. D.C. Circuit: The agency had sufficient evidence to believe that they would (and, by the way, plaintiff "should be reassured, although assurances are not needed, that we have never used or even owned a rubber stamp, that we have never, ever considered an allegation alone to be a fact, and that we have never credited a 'supposition' that was lacking in support").
- ATF agents place video camera on utility pole outside suspect's home, giving them a 24/7 live feed that can be viewed remotely and which they operate for eight months without a warrant. Is that a "search" under the Fourth Amendment? First Circuit, sitting en banc: Three of us say no. And three of us say yes, but the agents can't be expected to have known that (and no matter that the gov't didn't initially raise its good-faith argument below). So the lower court order suppressing the evidence is reversed.
- Do recent narrow interpretations of Congress's enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment affect older caselaw on the Thirteenth Amendment? No, says the First Circuit, in upholding a Nazi creep's hate crime conviction. Unlike the Fourteenth, the Thirteenth reaches private conduct, which is a whole different thing.
- After being convicted of 266 counts for his role in the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa—in which 224 people were killed—al Qaeda operative is sentenced to 264 concurrent terms of life imprisonment, to be followed by, among other things, a consecutive 30-year term of imprisonment (for using an explosive device during a crime of violence). Man: In the wake of a 2019 Supreme Court decision, my 30-year sentence is no longer valid. (Or more precisely, the conviction giving rise to it is no longer valid.) Second Circuit: Come back once you've served your life sentence and we can talk about the 30-year sentence.
- Allegation: Though required by state law to report suspected child abuse, several North Carolina public school officials (including the district superintendent) turned a blind eye to an elementary school teacher who, among other things, put an autistic first grader in a trash can, prevented him from getting out, and told him that "if he acted like trash, [she] would treat him like trash." Fourth Circuit: Concerning and disheartening! But North Carolina law recognizes that officials can't do their jobs fearlessly, vigorously, and effectively if they have to spend time defending against suits like this; state-law "public official" immunity applies.
- Bald Head Island, N.C. safety officers get fired after the brass catches wind of their group chat, which included such bangers as a meme that "depicted a man being hit in the face with hot dogs and stated that 'Jeese's [sic] [Lieutenant] interview went well.'" But were the officers defamed by public statements that the group chat had resulted in complaints against the officers (which it had not)? Fourth Circuit: Indeed they were.
- Allegation: In 2017, Mahnomen County, Minn.'s highway engineer lowered the weight limit on some county roads dramatically and, less than an hour later, pulled over trucks belonging to a family-owned construction business that he held a grudge against—while letting every other newly overweight vehicle pass unmolested. Eighth Circuit (2021): No other official has previously been held liable for engaging in a personal vendetta against private citizens in precisely this way. Qualified immunity for the engineer. IJ cert petition (this week): The court skipped over a prerequisite: Before officials can raise qualified immunity as a defense, they must first show they acted within the scope of their authority, and an engineer pretending to be a cop certainly can't. Click here to learn more.
- California uses prisoners to fight wildfires. But then when they are released, it holds their criminal records against them and bans those same people from getting full-time jobs as firefighters (by barring them from getting an EMT certification, which is necessary to fight fires full time). Plaintiffs: We've demonstrably turned our lives around. The ban is irrational—probably on its face because there are so many crimes that have nothing to do with fitness to be certified as an EMT, but certainly as applied to us. Ninth Circuit: It's not for judges to second guess what legislatures do. (This is an IJ case.)
- Immigrants detained solely due to their immigration status and neither charged with, nor convicted of, any crime, allege that the overseers of their private, for-profit detention facilities forced them to perform labor against their will and without adequate compensation in violation of state and federal law. A California district court certifies three plaintiff classes related to the various claims. Ninth Circuit: And all of the classes were appropriately certified.
- After a Florida lawyer hired by the Phoenix, Ariz. Eparchy of the Byzantine Catholic Church files a lawsuit against the Eparchy's health benefits plan, three bishops of the church complain that he is greedy and incompetent, resulting in the Pope firing him. He sues the bishops for defamation in Arizona. District Court: No jurisdiction over the out-of-state bishops. Ninth Circuit: They purposefully directed their messages to Arizona, establishing jurisdiction.
- Denver schoolteacher is beaten to death on New Year's Day 2000. A then-14-year-old boy with cognitive deficiencies is ultimately convicted of her murder and sentenced to life in prison. Years later, DNA tests on items supposedly tying him to the scene come back not quite supporting that. His conviction is tossed in exchange for his pleading guilty to accessory after the fact, and he's released. He sues. Detectives: Qualified immunity, plus his claims are barred because he was convicted of accessory. Tenth Circuit: His claims may proceed.
- Plaintiffs: The Oklahoma dental board's refusal to grant us specialty licenses violates both antitrust law and the Constitution. Tenth Circuit: They seem downright eager to give them to you now, so your case is moot.
- The ministerial exception prohibits courts from inquiring into employment disputes between religious bodies and their ministers. But does the collateral order doctrine grant federal appellate courts jurisdiction to consider interlocutory challenges to denials of summary judgment under the ministerial exception? Tenth Circuit: It does not. So the religious school that fired a teacher after he gave a presentation on faith and race will have to proceed to trial. Dissent: Does so. And the undisputed evidence shows that the teacher—also the Director of Student Life (i.e., chaplain)—was employed as a minister at the time he was fired.
- Woman is hired as director of animal services for Lake County, Fla., which is in the process of changing its animal shelter into a "no kill" shelter. On her way out the door to attend evening classes, the director tells her supervisee to try to find placements for some of the animals. The supervisee instead orders 23 or 24 of the animals euthanized. When this is discovered, the new director is fired, and the sheriff issues a press release blaming the now-former director for the euthanized animals, resulting in her receiving death threats. Eleventh Circuit: No reason to disturb the jury's $100k defamation award.
- In 2018, Charlottesville, Va. officials gave a local freelance writer and bestselling novelist an unwelcome surprise: an overdue tax bill. City: The tax code may not list "writers" among the types of businesses who are subject to the business license tax, which generally applies to (and pays for costs associated with) storefront businesses. But there's a catchall provision at the end that applies. Pay up. Virginia Supreme Court: Nope. If you want to tax someone, the law has to be clear. (This is an IJ case.)
- The Indiana Constitution gives the governor the power to call a "special session." It otherwise gives the Indiana legislature the power to "fix[] by law" when it meets. But can the legislature pass a "law" that delegates the ability to call a special session to a smaller "council" of legislators, which would call a special session via a "resolution"? Indiana Supreme Court: No can do, a "law" is a "law," not a "resolution." And the Indiana Constitution specifically gives the power to the governor. (For a little more on what this all means, do please check out this effervescent blog post.)
Friends, the right to criticize the government is one of our most fundamental rights. So a pox on East Cleveland, Ohio officials for abusing their authority and retaliating against 74-year-old William Fambrough, an activist and frequent critic of the mayor, police chief, and city law director. Last year, police officers enforced a never-used ordinance and impounded William's van, part of a series of incidents (that also included multiple police visits to his home) meant to chill his political speech. William used the van to canvass in support of a challenger to the mayor, and the towing caused so much damage that the van was inoperable in the weeks before the election (which the mayor ultimately won). So a pox, we say, and also a lawsuit: This week, IJ filed suit against the city and the officials who ordered and carried out the violation of William's rights. Cleveland.com has the story. Click here to find the complaint.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
East Cleveland is a cesspool, much of it looks like Berlin 1945 and its politics are somehow worse.
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that Customs and Border Protection officers have de facto absolute immunity from constitutional claims for damages.
Immune lawyer pricks immunizing agents of the immune lawyer pricks. Legal immunity fully justifies retaliatory violence in formal logic. Formal logic is supreme over all rules and ratified treaties of the US because it comes from reality not from made up shit by rent seeking, self serving lawyers.
"After being convicted of 266 counts for his role in the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa—in which 224 people were killed—al Qaeda operative is sentenced to 264 concurrent terms of life imprisonment, to be followed by, among other things, a consecutive 30-year term of imprisonment"
Hey, pro-criminal, pro-terrorist lawyer scumbag traitors. You are silly and ridiculous. Why is this guy alive? Easy. He is generating massive income for the scumbag lawyer profession, and their servants in government. Imagine the medical bill. Imagine the boarding costs, the security costs to prevent others from hurting him. You will understand this crazy talk.
Or, one of the conditions of extradition is no death penalty.
Pretty sure every country in the EU has dropped death penalty and makes it a condition when they send someone to us.
Besides, death penalty means automatic appeals etc. Very expensive. Keeps lawyers employed.
Life in prison is cheap in comparison.
Isn't Europe populated with the same kind of lawyers, just a few decades more along?
I think there are many fewer lawyers per capita in Europe.
You are correct. Send the drones over there. Lob a grenade into their apartments, kill their families and friends. To deter.
You are also correct about the fake capital punishment appellate racket. I have come to oppose the death penalty in the US. I have come to support the Italian death penalty. In Italy, a felon is just troublesome. A guard waves a carton of cigarettes. The prisoner is stabbed 50 times. The investigation finds he committed suicide. The prisons of Italy have been found the Italian prison suicide rate to be a Crime Against Humanity by the pro-criminal bureaucrats of the European Union.
That Federal Class asshole out a teenager in prison for years and the Federal Class SCOTUS ruled he’s immune to accountability?
It appears none of the Volokh Conspirators wants to talk about the insurrection hearings. Not even the part about Volokh favorites John Eastman and Jeffrey Bossert Clark.
Instead, a wall of silence evoking this white, male blog's handling of the Kozinski scandal.
What a bunch of cowards.
Should we expect prompt publication of a vile racial slur to redirect attention?
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, and no further.
Hi, Rev. I want to talk about the hearings, a Stalinist show trial with zero balance, produced as a Democrat infomercial. The problem for them? Their straight hate speech will generate hatred for the Democrat Party not for Trump. USA USA USA.
I recall a number of Conspirators endorsing Ted Cruz. I think a couple have expressed some regrets.
Prof. Volokh endorsed John Eastman and Ted Cruz. I do not recall any expression of regret, withdrawal of support, or explanation. Those endorsement just hang out there, shaming the author too cowardly to do anything but change the subject or remain mute.
As I recall, Orin Kerr was a Cruz fan who later said something along the line of "He didn't turn out the way I expected," which I took as an expression of regret.
" As I recall, Orin Kerr was a Cruz fan "
I hope that isn't true. Everyone I have known -- Republican or Democrat -- who knows Ted Cruz has described him as an insufferable asshole and a dangerous mix of ambition and selfishness. Prof. Kerr seems an unlikely fit with that profile.
Well, there this: https://volokh.com/2012/07/31/congratulations-to-ted-cruz/ though, as I said, he seems to have had a change of heart.
Yes.
Changed my opinion of Eugene Volokh significantly.
That, and some of his posts, convinced me that he really is a RW radical.
I vaguely recall that it took me several months to recognize that his self-described "libertarianism" was essentially congruent with hard right-wing (movement conservative) preferences, and that Prof. Somin was the sole libertarian among the Conspirators, obliterating the blog's amateurish attempts to dodge the conservative label.
Somin is a Beltway Democrat.
bernard11....you actually think Professor Volokh is a right-wing radical? Really?
XY,
Depends on your definition of "radical," I suppose. I think the right in this country is pretty radical, so sympathizers are suspect. And before someone jumps in with "What about Antifa, or AOC, or whatever, let me say that while there are some fairly leftish folks running around, the don't exercise nearly the same influence.
I mean, you have a political party basically fawning over Donald Trump. Conservatives admire Victor Orban. How is that not an authoritarian movement?
Whatever the merits of Bivens, Congress could moot that decision by simply amending 42 USC 1983 to include federal officials. SCOTUS has been narrowing Bivens for about 40 years, yet Congress has never passed legislation on the matter. Congress either agrees with SCOTUS or simply doesn't care.
I suspect they don’t care but maybe the plaintiffs bar needs to change strategy. Do we really need Bivens when they can be sued for state law claims of trespass, battery, false arrest? If someone trespasses on my property and knocks me to the ground, as happened to Mr. Boule, I wouldn’t think his status as a federal agent immunized him from suit for conduct that is a tort under the laws of the state where it happened.
"Do we really need Bivens when they can be sued for state law claims of trespass, battery, false arrest? "
I strongly suspect that the federal courts would declare that federal agents are inherently immune to state law claims.
Well, if Derek Chauvin had worked for the FBI rather than the Minneapolis police, is there anything that would have prevented the local DA from bringing state murder charges? Can a federal agent be cited for speeding in his federal car?
I do not know. Has it ever been tried?
Actually yes. A census worker in Hawaii was criminally charged with trespassing after refusing to leave someone’s property. The US attorney removed the case to federal court, but the case went forward under state law. IIRC the DA ultimately nolle prossed because trying the case would have required travel to Honolulu from one of the other islands so it was a resources issue.
The case gets removed to federal court and then dismissed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charge
It was dismissed by the prosecutor because too much time had passed.
Actually per the link above:
It was originally dismissed by the federal district judge because federal officers acting in the scope of their employment have immunity.
That eventually got reversed by an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit.
Only then were the charges dismissed by the Boundary County DA (not the same one who brought the charges in the first place).
Same thing more or less happened with Lon Horiuchi; The charges were brought, the feds removed to federal court and got them dismissed, ("For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:") and while the state could have brought them again, in the mean while a new DA didn't care to.
All of which goes to my original point: These cases (the census worker and the Ruby Ridge agent) were not dismissed because you can't sue the feds in state court under state legal theories. You can. The feds will remove the case to federal court, but if the state or the plaintiff decide to continue the case there, it will go forward there under state law. Just because both prosecutors chose, for other reasons, not to pursue the cases doesn't mean they couldn't have been pursued.
Not quite. Generally the next step after removal to federal court is that the federal judge dismisses the charges without bothering to hear the case. That's what happened with Horiuchi.
The state can start the process all over again, since that removal and dismissal doesn't implicate the double jeopardy clause the way an acquittal would. But they often see it as futile, because the feds are free to just do it all over again.
Generally the next step after removal to federal court is that the federal judge dismisses the charges without bothering to hear the case.
Do you have any citation for that, or just your gut?
"That's what happened with Horiuchi."; Maybe you weren't paying attention at the time?
That's WHY they get the charges moved to a federal court. Same reason King George did that with his people just prior to the Revolutionary war.
" These cases (the census worker and the Ruby Ridge agent) were not dismissed because you can't sue the feds in state court under state legal theories. You can. "
First these cases were criminal cases not civil suits, so whether or not you can sue the feds in state court for state causes of action is irrelevant to these cases.
Brett, you said generally.
Just about definitionally a single example won't cash that check.
Come on, man, that's basic logic; you know this.
Matthew, I would think a private individual would have an even stronger case than the state would, but even if I’m wrong about that, why would federal agents be bound by state criminal law but not civil law?
Well, there was a House bill last year: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470/text
It appears to be stuck in committee. There were 41 co-sponsors - none from the alleged party of small gubmint.
That bill fails to add federal officers to the scope of government actors covered by (42 U.S.C. 1983)
(and, by the way, plaintiff "should be reassured, although assurances are not needed, that we have never used or even owned a rubber stamp, that we have never, ever considered an allegation alone to be a fact, and that we have never credited a 'supposition' that was lacking in support").
Seriously? The DC court said that?
Clearly opinions are not issued under oath.
They have it printed on a rubber stamp, probably, for convenience.
The qualified immunity case reinforces my opinion that a career in law would be great for my autistic daughter.
It's too bad she's female; otherwise, I could recommend a legal blog she could try to join.
The previous paragraph of the opinion may put it in context:
Oceana also criticizes the studies and evaluations the Service relied upon in adopting its Amendment 5b protocols. In what is an all-too-familiar mode of appellate brief writing, Oceana wastes space plucking quotations from our court’s opinions and stringing them together without analysis. Thus, Oceana reminds us, as if we needed reminding, that our court does not “rubber-stamp” agency action, that we do not “accept bare conclusory allegations as fact,” and that we do not defer to “unsupported suppositions.” Appellant Br. 49–50 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ninth Circuit: It's not for judges to second guess what legislatures do.
Every judge who every says this should be immediate removed from office.
Why bother havkng a legislature if judges just make the decisions anyway? A ceremonial democracy is considerably more expensive than a ceremonial monarchy, and doesn’t brong in anywhere near the tourist dollars. Why not dispense with it?
If one is going to have a purely ceremonial branch of government whose decisions are just second-guessed by another branch, why not go for a monarchy? Citizens don’t have to waste their time pretending they have a say in their government. And they’ll have less occassion to be angry with each other for disagreeing if their government is honest with them up front that what they think doesn’t matter and isn’t going to make any difference anyway.
But North Carolina law recognizes that officials can't do their jobs fearlessly, vigorously, and effectively if they have to spend time defending against suits like this; state-law "public official" immunity applies.
Oversight of child abuse is NOT one of their jobs? Congress needs to get rid of this immunity BS.
Child abuse? The seminal North Carolina case involved a teacher who threw a pencil at a child and blinded her. The teacher’s act was done with the intention of disciplining the child, a non-malicious intent. No malice, no exception to immunity.
This case doesn’t seem particularly different from that one.
Could Ross please double-check the link under "Virginia Supreme Court" in the Charlottesville paragraph? It appears to lead to an unrelated case.
Amazing how both parties claim they support the people of this country but cannot come to agreement and remove QI as a valid defense.
Especially if the action is undeniably illegal if committed by someone not in government.
What would be illegal about this conduct if undertaken by a private person?
Yes, I would, but they do not have the men with guns to impose their selfishness, tyranny, and utter stupidity. They cannot commit the armed robbery of the lawyer scumbag traitor. They are more technicians, less responsible policy officials.
If you like Detroit now, thank the lawyer that destroyed manufacturing and the American family.
One difference between our nation is that we have 1.5 worthless lawyer scumbags for a population of 330 million. They have 20000 lawyers for a population of 100 million and virtually no crime. China wants to imitate us. They increased the number of their lawyers. Crime is soaring in China after doing that . Here is a fun thought experiment for Eugene. What kind of studying does it take to pass the bar in the 20000 character alphabet of Mandarin Chinese?
Yeah, blame the lawyers.
Meanwhile, GM was producing cars in the 70s that were so bad, the inside door handles were falling off - and 3rd party companies made kits to fix them (actually stronger than before...)
Somehow, executives didn't realize they were building crap cars.
To this day, the executives think American cars are the best. Between the fake chrome that peels off, leather seats that feel like plastic, sounds systems that they charge premiums for but have cut rate speakers in them. Yeah, lawyer's fault.
Or do you mean executives at companies like Milwaukee selling out to China so that in 3 years after the sale 100% of the manufacturing went to China. You know why its being built China? Better quality? Hah!
Well, unless the camera was being put up by or with the permission of the local utility that owns the pole in question, mounting it on the pole would be an illegal trespass against the utility company.
"You know why its being built China? Better quality? Hah!"
Cheaper labor and no union work rules.
Right. The problems with the US auto industry trace directly to the management of the Big Three automakers.
Poor quality control, shoddy design, out-of-date models. "Who wants a small car, anyway?"
Many years ago I read an article by a former auto exec explaining how out of touch the top managers were. It said that the top guys got a new fully equipped car every year, and it was maintained at the company garage, for free, and also fueled there.
They never grasped what their customer experience was.
Con. Who protected the failed executives of GM, instead of their being fired by angry shareholders on the spot?
Also, fewer environmental regulations to deal with.
When Detroit winds up a product, they box up and ship the assembly line to China, South America, anyone who wants to buy it.
Actually, all of the above.
Chinese manufacturers can and do produce high-quality products when asked (meaning, ordered and paid for).
Its funny. Everyone else poo poo'ing domestics is complaining:
"in the 70's"
"for many years"
"Ross Perot"
I wonder if they've bothered looking at all in the past couple of decades. While I miss the hell outta my '77 Ltd II, I don't believe all of the US car companies are still operating the same way with the same products and ideas. Is this backlash from the GM bailout? Envy of domestic buyers (especially of small cars) having money left over to pay insurance and gas costs? 🙂
PS: (If he's a VC reader) Psst! Big Jim! I enjoyed the heck outta my time with the twin turbo'd taurus, but please bring the c platform RS over to the b platform. It should get even better mileage and go like stink. Kisses!
I was sort of on the inside when Ross Perot sold EDS to GM and tried to institute some changes regarding business sense and improving quality and so on as GM’s largest shareholder. Got so bad that Perot was greenmailed away, although he didn’t shut up.
One of Perot’s cronies was on the GM BOD and was my boss at another venture and was also greenmailed. Made $64 million if I remember right and came to work the next day joking about having been fired.
GM paid those guys around a billion $ to go away rather than consider any improvements.
GM was a complete clusterfark and as you say was directly responsible for the decline of the US auto industry, along with the other two.
They were pretty ugly with their supply chain, too. My former employer wasn't the only company driven to bankruptcy by Lopez' practices; He had a habit of using up vendors and throwing them away, figuring there'd always be another sucker available.
To the extent, accountants fail to oppose the complexity of accounting and tax rules, to the extent they support fictitious ideas in accounting, they are promoting employment for themselves, and robbing people at the point of a gun. But the men with guns always work for lawyers. Those took an oath to protect the constitution and the public interest, not armed robbery.
Elsewhere, I have also accused the medical profession of rent seeking that is twice as big as the lawyer profession, with half the medical budget being waste and promoting garbage employment of garbage people. Their rent seeking is also 10 times more fatal, with 150000 deaths from medical error, compared to 15000 from murder. But the doctors could argue, their rent seeking is all driven by lawyer intimidation.
Good question. What makes a lawyer less pure evil? There is no such lawyer yet. Eugene is an evil denier indoctrinating hundreds of intelligent young people into this garbage profession. No such lawyer exists yet.
1) The sole tool of the law is punishment, a procedure on the body, including fines. All remedies must be proven safe and effective;
2) all supernatural and fictitious doctrines violate the Establishment Clause, rid the entire Code of them;
3) stop all failed remedies; the lawyer profession and its wholly owned subsidiary, government are in utter failure;
4) any utterance written above the 6th grade level fails to give notice to defendants and is void; any such utterance forces the hiring of a lawyer and is fraudulent and criminal; criminal utterances are void;
5) immunity fully justifies violence in formal logic, and all immunities must end, especially when self dealt and not statutory in the least;
6) we are overlawyered. Cut the profession and its criminal haul in half. Transfer $500 billion a year to research and development. Only tachnology has improved our lives. Research should be budgeted at 20% of GDP. Get the difference from the worthless garbage lawyer profession;
7) we are in the Inquisition 2.0, and it is far more sophisticated; as French patriots did 240 years ago, arrest the hierarchy of this garbage profession, try them an hour, and execute them in the court basement. They are in insurrection against the constitution;
8) support the enforcement of 3.1, a rule against the filing of claims without merit. Delicense most tort lawyers, most family lawyers supporting false allegations, any corrupt prosecutor who railroaded an innocent defendant.
The scumbags here have no idea what I am even talking about. The people on the bus and in the diner find these self evident.
Torts is unauthorized Commie industrial policy. It does not deter. It does not help plaintiffs. All costs come from the public. Corps don't t care. It does not promote safety. Only tech development does.
Liability is based on foresseability of rare events. That is a supernatural power attributable to God by St. Thomas. It violates the Establishment Clause and is idiotic.
Immunity grows the enterprise. Liability shrinks it. See the early railroad vs the later railroad now almost gone. See the early internet. See immune government. If we are going to have torts, end all self dealt government immunities. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the scumbag lawyer profession. It is a toxic dangerous failure. Deter it. Shrink it.
Eugene is a First Amendment expert. He does not see that foreseeability of rare events is a supernatural power and illegal in our secular nation. Is he an idiot? Yes. But also a denier in support of lawyer enrichment by fraudulent fake legal doctrines. This violation of Critical Thimking and Scholasticism is from high schiol. He is destroying the high school education to indoctrinate law students.
Moreover, what does whether the BATF agents would have known it was illegal have to do with the suppression decision? Suppression isn't punishment, it's vindicating the rights of the person wronged by the illegal search.
Agreed. What does that have to do with this scenario, or with FivebySixThree's claim?
Part of the issue is brand loyalty, something the US makers used to understand quite well.
Buy a crappy Chevy Citation, as a friend did, in the 80's, and replace with a solid Toyota, and you are unlikely to look back.
No doubt the Japanese manufacturers, and others, would have established themselves in the US sooner or later, but Detroit's issues sure helped. I can remember when "foreign car" had a vaguely exotic connotation.
Suppression is intended to be a deterrent. The logic goes that it doesn't make sense to try to deter someone from doing something he didn't believe was wrong.
"The logic goes that it doesn't make sense to try to deter someone from doing something he didn't believe was wrong."
That "logic" seems bass ackwards.
If X has been determine to be wrong by a competent authority, but individual Y disagrees, that would seem to call for extra strong deterrent.
That's why the test doesn't hinge on the officer's subjective belief about whether the conduct was permissible, but rather whether there was a good reason to think it was permissible (such as a warrant, or as here, binding precedent saying that using a pole camera is not a search).