Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Solar panels, bullet fragments, and private rights of action.

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: Texas drone privacy and an unparticular iCloud search.

• In 2018 President Trump jacked up tariffs on solar panels to "protect the domestic solar panel industry." Producers of a certain kind of solar panel—of the "bifacial" variety—petitioned for an exception. It was granted! But then denied. But then granted again! But then denied again. Court of International Trade: Sounds pretty sketch. Federal Circuit: Perhaps, but that kind of yo-yoing is perfectly fine under our laws.
• First Circuit: Yeah, this pro se gent is technically a registered candidate for president, but that still doesn't mean he has standing to try to get Donald Trump barred from the New Hampshire primary ballot on insurrectionist grounds.
• Does the Eighth Amendment require giving prisoners medical care to remove bullets and bullet fragments lodged in their bodies? The Second Circuit doesn't say, but it does hold that district courts should consider a plaintiff's family-support obligations and should not just assume that prisons provide all the necessities of life when deciding whether to excuse poor inmates from prepayment of filing fees.
• Baptist inmate in New York is excluded from all religious services for over five months after prison officials fail to update the "call-out list" for Protestant services. He sues, alleging a violation of his free exercise rights. Second Circuit: No qualified immunity, at least not right now. Concurrence: And what's all this about requiring a "substantial" burden on religion to state a claim; we usually don't let courts decide how important someone's religious practice is.
• Maryland not only requires a license to own a handgun, but also a license to carry one, and also an initial "handgun qualification license" before starting to try to own one. That initial license can take up to 30 days to obtain. Fourth Circuit: In olden times we didn't have "qualification license" laws like these, so there shouldn't be one now. Dissent: I don't see an "infringe" here.
• Fifth Circuit (unpublished, per curiam): It is unconstitutional excessive force to sic a police dog without warning on an unarmed, unthreatening suicidal person who is not suspected of a crime. But this was not clearly established, so these Conroe, Tex. officers are off the hook for unleashing a dog after a woman yanked her arm out of an officer's grasp.
• This Fifth Circuit ruling is remarkable, not so much for its holding that a Texas man had a qualified right to confront witnesses against him in a hearing to revoke his supervised release, but for Judge Ho's concurring opinion, which is basically an amicus brief addressed to the Supreme Court's pending ruling in the Second Amendment case United States v. Rahimi.
• Galveston, Tex. officer shoots man in the back, killing him, as he fled on foot from a traffic stop with an unusual gait. It turns out the man had a handgun with a high-capacity magazine, but video evidence suggests the officer couldn't see the gun. Fifth Circuit: Even if he couldn't see the gun, the circumstances were suspicious enough that the officer could reasonably think he was in danger. Qualified immunity. Dissent: This case should go to a jury, which could reasonably conclude that somebody running from a low-level traffic stop didn't present any danger.
• Automotive-parts supplier Prevent USA brings antitrust suit against Volkswagen in the Eastern District of Texas. Volkswagen: Speaking as a famously German corporation, we think the town of Marshall, Tex. is pretty clearly a forum non conveniens. District court: So ein Pech! The Fifth Circuit in 1982 held that the forum non conveniens doctrine is categorically inapplicable to antitrust suits! Fifth Circuit: Himmel! But we corrected that mistake en banc five years later, in 1987! The district court is mandamused and directed to actually dig into the forum non conveniens analysis in the first instance.
• During a traffic stop, a Tennessee officer asks, "Do you have your wallet?" The driver pulls it out of his pocket, and the officer says, "Let me see it for a moment." The driver hands it over, and the officer finds stolen credit-card information. Sixth Circuit (reviewing for clear error; over a dissent): It wasn't a command, he handed over the wallet voluntarily, no need to suppress the evidence. [Apropos of nothing, here is an article about the composition of the judiciary.]
• Arkansas advocacy groups sue the state for diluting black votes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; they allege the state split black people into either hyper-concentrated districts or among multiple other districts where they're outnumbered. Eighth Circuit: Private parties cannot sue to enforce Section 2; only the United States Attorney General can, and he's declined to participate here. Dissent: Literally hundreds of Section 2 cases have been litigated by private parties. We should follow the extensive history, precedent, and implied Congressional approval to recognize a private right of action, rather than attempting to predict SCOTUS's future decisions and work a major upheaval in the law.
• Armed with an administrative warrant for a California man they suspect of being unlawfully present in the U.S., ICE officers pull the man over in his car and question him about his citizenship. He admits he's illegally present, and they seek to deport him based on this admission. Should they have Mirandized the man? No need, says the Ninth Circuit. Miranda does not apply in civil immigration proceedings. Mendoza, J., concurring: But perhaps aliens should be advised of the rights they do have. Bress, J., concurring: Perhaps not.
• Lyon County, Nev. officers responding to a domestic violence call confront a foul-mouthed, shirtless, unarmed man who runs towards them. Five shots later the man is dead. Qualified Immunity? Ninth Circuit: Yes, over a "respectful[] but emphatic[]" dissent.
• We don't want to get on a high horse about this, but if an appellate court—like, say, the Eleventh Circuit—holds oral argument on a case and then writes 79 pages of closely reasoned argument for why Bradenton, Fla.-based gangsters Nico, Boo Boo, and Big Man can go to jail, its opinion should be designated for publication.
• And in en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will not reconsider its opinion that deploying a SWAT team to arrest somebody for making a zombie joke on Facebook violates the First and Fourth Amendments. En route to that result, the Fifth Circuit held that World War I-era precedents that allowed jailing pamphleteers critical of the gov't are no longer good law, a result we can all be thankful for (especially those who made the mistake of sharing political hot takes at the Thanksgiving table yesterday). (This is an IJ case.)
• And in more en banc news, the Sixth Circuit will reconsider its decision granting habeas relief to an Ohio man who has thrice been sentenced to death for a 1983 murder. Could it be that after more than 20 SCOTUS reversals of Sixth Circuit habeas grants in as many years, the circuit is finally learning its lesson?

Comments

[BillyG]

Maryland not only requires a license to own a handgun, but also a license to carry one, and also an initial "handgun qualification license" before starting to try to own one.

IJ error. No license required to own. Only a license to Carry & purchase/receive.

[Kazinski]

"starting to try to own" sounds a lot like purchase/receive.

Does seem like a loophole that you wouldn't need a license to steal one because that's not purchasing or receiving.

[Magister]

Since stealing a gun would already be illegal, requiring a license to steal as well would presumably be no more than an excuse to add on to that crime's penalties, like the marijuana tax stamps mentioned in the recent Thursday-but-on-Wednesday open thread.

[John F. Carr]

I think running from police with a visible handgun, not aimed at anybody, should not be a shooting offense. Reading the decision I don't believe the cops' story about traffic violations. They made that up to justify reasonable suspicion after the fact.

[jimc5499]

I'd say that it depends. When I was trained for armed security, I was taught that once a person flees, they are no threat to me and the people or property that I am guarding. During that part of the training it was mentioned that didn't apply to Police Officers because of their obligation to apprehend or protect (this was before Gonzales vs Castle Rock). John you would be right it it was you or me. The article doesn't give enough information, like was it possible that he would be a threat to others if he wasn't stopped?

[SRG2]

FWIW in ye olde days in Britain, when all felonies were technically capital offences*, killing a fleeing felon was regarded as generally fine, as it is no more than he would have received anyway. The idea that killing a fleeing felon was okay continued in the US – and in the way of things, seems to have persisted as a legitimate act even after the DP was no longer relevant.

* This occasionally results in odd jury findings, e.g., that a five-pound note was worth four pounds and ten shillings (£4.50) and that therefore the theft of such was a misdemeanour, not a felony.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did they even have paper money back then?

I've heard of this in terms of theft of bread and the jury coming back with a smaller amount than actually was stolen so the thief wouldn't hang.

[bernard11]

What difference does it make?

They had coins.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John Kerry shot an enemy soldier in Vietnam for that -- he was running away with a weapon and Kerry shot him in the back.

I asked a military friend of mine and his response is that doing so was legitimate because you don't know that the soldier won't turn around and shoot at you with (in this case) the rifle. And this was a then 0-3 so I suspect he would know that sort of thing.

The real problem here is that a lot of cops, particularly the good ones, have ADHD which means that they are processing information without sending it all over the neural network -- only sending the conclusion which is a lot faster.

I would not be at all surprised to see a cop decide (correctly) that he had to shoot someone without really knowing why, and then only figuring out why later. This is why cop cams can also be the friend of the honest officer.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I asked a military friend of mine and his response is that doing so was legitimate because you don’t know that the soldier won’t turn around and shoot at you with (in this case) the rifle."

It's legitimate because he's a hostile belligerent. You can walk up to an enemy soldier while he's sleeping and shoot him in the head if you want.

[DonP]

Our senior drill sergeant was a little more terse on the subject, long before R Lee Ermey made it famous ...

"If you find yourself in a fair fight with the enemy, you f'****d up".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why is it a war crime to shoot POWs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenogne_massacre

[bernard11]

Because they are no longer combatants?

I mean, this is nothing recent. See Henry V.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would argue that an unarmed sleeping soldier isn't a combatant either.

[Frank Drackman]

Because you're an Idiot?
Jeez, you've never been in combat, a cop, or a medical provider, but doesn't keep you from pontificating as an expert in everything.
wow, that wasn't kind or gentle, little bit jet jagged Bee-Otches, but
the Drack-ster is on his way back from the Holey-land, that's all the warning you get.

Frank

[Zarniwoop]

And you'd be wrong, per usual.

A POW has affirmatively surrendered, affirmatively changing their status from "combatant" to "POW".

A sleeping combatant hasn't. If they wake up they are well within the law of war to stab you, shoot you, etc. with the weapon in their bedroll, because they haven't surrendered.

[David Nieporent]

.

The real problem here is that a lot of cops, particularly the good ones, have ADHD which means that they are processing information without sending it all over the neural network — only sending the conclusion which is a lot faster.

Remember when Dr. Ed said, “I don’t make things up”?

Good times.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What you fail to understand is that this belief is reflected in the literature. Experts can be (and often are) wrong, but if you look at individual officer's time in K-12, it is often textbook ADHD.

And no, I am not making this up -- although I don't have the time to write a lit review for you.

[David Nieporent]

What you fail to understand is that you are in fact making all of this up.

[Frank Drackman]

any normal adolescent male's life is "Textbook ADHD"

[Dr. Ed 2]

And pregnant women are technically obese.

There is a lot of misdiagnosis of ADHD --- both ways. Yes, a lot of false positives with normal boy behavior, and then a lot of false negatives with girls who have the primarily inattentive variant -- these are often the girls who do well in high school only to flunk out of college.

Remember too that this is on the basis of an arbitrary definition of "normal" -- same as with weight. Take a hypothetical 6 foot tall adult male -- 80 lbs would be underweight and 400 lbs overweight, but there is a lot of grey area in the middle, with the physically fit football player (or pregnant woman) being considered obese if you only look at weight.

And yes, any adolescent male will be defined as "textbook ADHD" if women are writing the textbooks -- but that is sexism, not science.

[Sarcastr0]

Your info is way out of date. Or you're making it up.

Either way, this is an inaccurate comment. Just like when you diagnosed Trump with 'textbook' ADHD from afar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How would *you* define his often self-destructive antics?

And I meant to write (and hope I wrote) that his actions are a textbook reflection of ADHD, not that I diagnose him as having ADHD -- but in attempting to keep ones word count down, things can be omitted.

And as to "Narcissistic", with the exception of Gerry Ford and possibly Jimmy Carter -- both of whom were accidental presidents -- can you name a recent President who wasn't? Normal people don't run for President, they don't have the confidence and they don't have the ego.

[wnoise]

I'd consider him cluster B rather than ADHD.

[Frank Drackman]

Most Air to Air combat kills are one fighter shooting another fighter "in the back".
You never watched "Top Gun" did you? (There's 2 types of peoples, those who can quote almost the entire movie, and those who can't)
What kind of movie would it have been if Maverick had said
"Don't worry Cougar, the Mig won't shoot you in the back, it would be a war crime!"

Frank "that'll just about cover the flybys"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Great line from a great movie, and great example of effective leadership -- and what more *could* he say that hadn't just been said?

The DOD, which may or may not know what it is talking about, says that aircraft kills today are head-to-head with missiles being fired before either aircraft is close enough *to* dogfight.
Just sayin....

[Kazinski]

It depends, if they had given some evidence of being dangerous, besides the mere fact they were carrying a gun, that might be enough. Had they pointed at someone? Had the taken a shot? Were the credibly suspected of a violent crime?

I'd think at least one of those would need to be true.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, cops get to shoot fleeing suspects because they work for the government, which decides what's legal. And the government doesn't want evading its enforcers to be as simple as running away.

There really isn't any more sophisticated principle here than the government making rules under which the government wins.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"And the government doesn’t want evading its enforcers to be as simple as running away."

QED, on the US Border, the government's enforcers should....

[vaadu]

Let's not forget the high-capacity magazine. That justifies using a bazooka on the fleeing perp.

[Jerry B.]

Although gangsters Nico, Boo Boo, and Big Man have been punished, I wonder when the Court will be admonished for using the racist term, “trap house”.

[SRG2]

Nice in-joke! 🙂

[Bill Poser]

If the Sixth Circuit thinks that "Let me see it for a moment." uttered by a police officer during a traffic stop is not a command, we really need to stop appointing judges not fluent in English.

[SomeGuy 2]

Yeah, it's easy to laugh at people who do the "AM I BEING DETAINED" or "IS THAT A COMMAND OR A REQUEST" or whatever bit with police. But this is why.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know if the state violated Von Clark Davis’ rights, but I’m interested in the circumstances of his crime…which he committed in 1983.

“When he shot [ex-girlfriend] Suzette Butler multiple times in the head, he was on parole for the 1970 stabbing death of his wife, Ernestine, 20, at her Hamilton home.”

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime–law/twice-convicted-killer-sentenced-die-for-third-time/h54VElRP1gp0fWjTQ9I6VL/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just think, if he hadn't been on parole in 1983, the little girl would have had her mother during the difficult teen years...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

How can one court tell other courts, "you're forbidden to consider our totally nonprecedential opinion"?

[Bill Poser]

They certainly can't tell other courts not to CONSIDER it. Whether they can cite it is as I understand it governed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which are issued by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Since 2007 the rules appear to permit the citation of unpublished opinions, so classification as "unpublished" seems merely to be a suggestion.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Interesting.

"Here's our opinion, but please don't quote us!"

"No, we think your opinion is helpful, so we'll quote it."

[SomeGuy 2]

The main benefits accrue to advocates. If an opinion is unpublished, then a lawyer writing a brief is excused from having to read/understand it and can't be ambushed with a, "Why didn't you cite..." This saves lawyers time and by extension clients money.

A 79 page opinion might be a candidate for this, if the reasoning is complex and so specific it's basically confined to its facts. A big signpost that says, "This case is weird, the precedential value is limited." That being said, if somebody somewhere finds it actually useful, nobody is stopping them.

[David Nieporent]

.

That being said, if somebody somewhere finds it actually useful, nobody is stopping them.

But it's also not binding if it's unpublished.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you have precedent on that?

Do you have an actual appeals decision explicitly stating that -- for the sole reason that the decision was not published -- it was not to be considered binding precedent?

Not that the decision wasn't really quite relevant or some other squishy stuff, but that the court would have reversed had the decision been published, but since it wasn't, it won't -- for that reason alone.

I know what the rules say, but has any appellate court ever ruled this? And what is the real difference between binding and so persuasive that an appeals court will reverse on the grounds you should have been persuaded?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Courts have to follow binding precedent even if they don’t agree with it. That’s what makes it binding: the court is bound to follow it.

And yes, of course courts comment on the distinction all the time, either by declining to follow cases that aren’t binding on them, or noting that they think a certain binding precedent is wrong, and that they’re following it only because they have to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But has there ever been an actual circuit decision that explicitly stated "we would reverse had the decision been published, but as it wasn't, we won't -- solely because it wasn't published"?

Yes, courts *can* ignore an unpublished decision that would otherwise be binding, but *do* they? And more importantly, would they be reversed if they did? Because without the latter, it becomes a distinction without a difference...

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

Yes, courts *can* ignore an unpublished decision that would otherwise be binding, but *do* they?

Yes, of course. See, e.g., United States v. Schopp, 938 F.3d 1053 at n.2 (9th Cir. 2019).

And more importantly, would they be reversed if they did?

No, a court would not be reversed just for failing to follow a non-binding decision—though of course if the higher court agreed with the rationale of that decision, it certainly could end up with a reversal.

Because without the latter, it becomes a distinction without a difference…

I have no idea what you’re trying to convey here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Yes, of course. See, e.g., United States v. Schopp, 938 F.3d 1053 at n.2 (9th Cir. 2019)."

OK, I was wrong. I didn't think they would -- or would be reversed on appeal if they did.

[mse326]

I could be wrong, but I think if it isn't published it also isn't subject to stare decisis to the district courts in the circuit or future 3 judge circuit panels as published opinions are. So basically it can be treated like you would treat an out of circuit opinion by both advocates and judges

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fifth Circuit (unpublished, per curiam):

It is unconstitutional excessive force to sic a police dog without warning on an unarmed, unthreatening suicidal person who is not suspected of a crime. But this was not clearly established,

Sounds like it’s still not clearly established.

[darkknight9]

I thought the same thing about it sounding settled.

That "not suspected of a crime" part worries me. Are they allowed to sic the dog on aforementioned suicidal person if they say they thought he or she was suspected of a crime?

Super lame take: if they are allowed to release the hounds on a criminal suspect what's to stop them from letting the dog go and then claiming they were charged with disorderly conduct?

Forgive me. Not a lawyer and bored cuz the lasagna needs another 1/2 hour to cook.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Theoretically, they are actually "assisting" and "helping" the mentally ill or suicidal person. I emphasize theoretically....

[David Nieporent]

.

That “not suspected of a crime” part worries me. Are they allowed to sic the dog on aforementioned suicidal person if they say they thought he or she was suspected of a crime?

The 4th amendment bans unreasonable uses of force, not all uses of force. And whether a given use of force is reasonable is based on a totality of the circumstances. Someone suspected of murder is a greater danger permitting more force than someone suspected of jaywalking, let alone someone not suspected of any crime at all.

[bernard11]

Are police not required to use even a tiny smidge of common sense?

[Brett Bellmore]

Does the government require its own goons to use even a tiny smidge of common sense? No, of course not. Why would you think the government wants to tie its own hands?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Arguably that was the mistake of the Warren Court -- in establishing what was prohibited, it essentially licensed everything that wasn't.

And what's not being said about the election of the Soros DAs is *why* DAs are elected in the first place -- that they are supposed to represent the *people* and not the government. Soros has taken it way too far, for reasons I am not sure of (unless he truly does want to destroy the US), but the prosecutor is supposed to be a check on police abuses.

[A nerdy Fred]

I don't understand reaching that decision in the Galveston case in the face of Tennessee v Garner, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

It also doesn't line up with my training from the Lethal Force Institute.

A longtime investigative journalist in Texas has accused some of the judiciary of a philosophy "the government always wins".

[Drewski]

Just the latest in a long line of cases finding that a "furtive gesture" can create the same circumstance as a visible, deadly weapon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

All officer-involved shootings in the State of Maine are reviewed by the Maine AG's Office and have been for some time now.

I don't believe that the Maine AG's Office has *ever* ruled a shooting to be unjustified -- and while that's possible, it's also statistically unlikely.

And I see that our incredibly competent Bureau of Prisons has let Derek Chauvin be stabbed, reportedly seriously injured.

[Zarniwoop]

AN Fred sez:

A longtime investigative journalist in Texas...

GritsForBreakfast?

[ReaderY]

I think the 4th Circuit should have waited for the outcome of Rahimi before deciding Maryland Shall Issue. The essential components of the qualification license are the fingerprinting and the 4-hour safety course. And these are reasonable requirements - fingerprinting wasn’t required in 1792 only because it didn’t exist then. Under the standard being discussed at oral argument in Rahimi, the principles, not the exact practices, are what matters.

While it inconveniences the people to separste the requirements into two distinct licenses, the requirements themselves are not unconstitutional. The 4th Circuit exceeded its mandate in particular by striking down the requirement thst one take a safety course to get a license. It was the lengthy time between the licenses, not the requirements, that the 4th Circuit found to be the core problem. Striking down the requirements was therefore not supported by the 4th Circuit’s findings of fact. It used a sledgehammer to drive a thumb tack.

If the 4th Circuit wanted to decide the case now, it could have completely addressed the inconvenience by the much lesser step of requiring that both licenses be applied for and issued at the same time rather than having a time gap between them, effectivelly making them a single license.

[ReaderY]

On the “sic the dogs” case, if the suicidal man had killed himself, would he be better off? It’s not like he wasn’t dangerous to self or others. There may have been better ways to distract him and produce the result of him surviving, but the police don’t have the option of hearing oral argument from counsel on alternatives and then waiting weeks or months before deciding what to do. I have been skeptical of qualified immunity claims. But this was a legitimate qualified immunity case. The core purpose of qualified immunity is to protect police in making split-second decisions in dangerous situations.

While there should be limits on the police’s ability to assume danger when a reasonable person clearly wouldn’t find the individual dangerous, what distinguishes this case is here all parties agreed the individual really was dangerous. And the police used non-lethal force.

[ReaderY]

To make the point more clearly, “suspected of a crime” is not the proper standard. “Dangerous to self or others” is. The police have a common-law duty to keep the peace. This means addressing danger in a more general sense, not just deterring crime.

Let me ask this question. If the country was invaded, would civilian police be constitutionally prohibited from shooting? Since it is no crime to be a soldier, enemy soldiers are not criminal suspects either.

Similar issue with an insane person, which I think is much closer to this case. As a hypothetical, consider a state where insane people are not guilty by reason of insanity. If the police know for sure a person is insane, are they powerless to use force because legally the insane person cannot be a criminal suspect no matter how dangerous that person is?

[Dr. Ed 2]

" If the country was invaded, would civilian police be constitutionally prohibited from shooting."

An *armed* enemy soldier *is* committing a crime -- possessing a fully automatic weapon without a NFA license to do so....

However, I suspect that the civilian police would very quickly be brought under the command of the US Army -- possibly by a governor using emergency powers to assign them to existing state National Guard units which then become Federalized.

[ReaderY]

No, any such prosecution would violate (for example) Ex Parte Quirin, which held that United States courts must recognize and apply the customary law of war. An enemy soldier engaged in lawful combat can be shot at (by uniformed paramilitaries), but cannot be treated as a criminal.

[Davy C]

Non-lethal, yes, but certainly harmful and potentially *very* harmful. She may be a danger to herself, but not immediately; the officer had no cause to believe she was hiding a weapon in her tank top or women's athletic shorts.

In this case the injuries were more severe because the dog was told to stop biting after about 8 seconds, but didn't stop until after about 64 seconds. I hope they don't continue to use this dog.

Plaintiff-Appellant Olivia Sligh’s partner called 911 to report that Sligh was suicidal, had hurt herself, and had left her house on foot. Sligh’s partner requested an ambulance, and he indicated that Sligh was unarmed and not a violent person. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office notified the City of Conroe of the emergency medical call and requested a canine officer if available

Why would they *specifically* request a canine officer in this situation? A canine officer is going to do exactly one thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Davy -- I found it -- McCabe v. City of Lynn which became Lifeline Ambulance v. McCabe on appeal. The trial judge put it best -- "[t]his case involves Rose Zinger who survived the Holocaust only to die at the hands of the Lynn Police."

The district decision is; https://casetext.com/case/mccabe-v-city-of-lynn and it has a link to the First Circuit (Lifeline) decision there.

Summarizing what the trial judge wrote, the police basically dragged her down a flight of stairs and bodyslammed her into an ambulance, face down, only to later realize she was dead. Read it yourself.

It's not that this happened, nor really that the First Circuit reversed, but that cops in Massachusetts are taught that this was OK. (That's how I found out about this case.)

It's really just a different form of Jim Crow.

[KenveeB]

"Why would they *specifically* request a canine officer in this situation? A canine officer is going to do exactly one thing."

Tracking her? She'd left the house on foot and it doesn't sound like anyone had eyes on her at the time of the call, so dispatching a canine to be able to locate her sounds very reasonable to me.

[Davy C]

OK, point taken.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"On the “sic the dogs” case, if the suicidal man had killed himself, would he be better off?"

Well, how suicidal *was* he? And how much *more* suicidal would the trauma, pain, and possible disability) cause by the dog bite make him? Suicide can not be prevented indefinitely if one TRULY wants to kill ones self.

But I look at this like the exclusionary rule -- society is collectively better off because the benefit of cops following the rules exceeds the cost of one criminal going free.

Hence the question to ask are suicidal persons as a group better off because the cops didn't violate the civil rights of one person who then committed suicide?

Yes -- because of all the *other* suicidal persons who would be helped by the cops, and wouldn't be if people feared police violence.

This is personal for me in that UMass stated that I was a mandatory mental health reporter who was supposed to call the police and I openly stated that I had no intention of ever doing so. And because it was known that I had said that, and meant it, I was able to prevent several likely undergrad suicides.

It may be morbid, but it's statistical cost-benefit and another example is hurricane evacuation. There is a known statistical number of deaths (mostly MVAs*) to be expected per 100,000 people evacuated and that is part of the Governor's decision to order evacuations. And are the people who die better off than if they hadn't evacuated?

* I don't believe that heart attacks are calculated in that figure.