Re: 5th Circuit police couldn't have known to check address before raid

In article <v1aos9$2jt8a$1@dont-email.me>,
 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Steve Lehto video
 
In a bad SWAT raid in 2019 at the wrong location, the 5th Circuit ruled
that the SWAT team commander couldn't have known he had the correct house
before ordering a raid on the wrong house.
 
Seriously? Some of us learned how to read an address as very young
children.
 
Three-judge panel ruled that there was a 4th Amendment violation but
the SWAT commander is still immune. There's even a case called Maryland
v. Garrison in which the Supreme Court ruled that police must make a
reasonable effort to determine that they are at the right location
before exercising the warrant but that case didn't make it absolutely
clear that it applied to the facts of this case.
 
Huh?

Now that SCOTUS has shit-canned Roe, maybe they can do the same to
qualified immunity. It's the most ridiculous legal concept imaginable:
"You have a constitutional right to X. We agree the cops violated that
right. But since that right has never been violated in this exact same
way before, you have no remedy for the violation of your right."

"Yes, the 4th Amendment guarantees that you're free from warrantless
searches, which was violated in this case. Yes, police have violated the
4th Amendment in the past by searching homes without warrants but the
cop in your case was named Malcolm and we were unable to find a past
case of another cop named Malcolm violating the 4th Amendment so there
was no reason this cop should have known that cops named Malcolm
shouldn't search people's homes without a warrant.

And even if he did know that Malcolm-named cops were bound by the 4th
Amendment the same as everyone else, he searched your house during a
full moon with both Jupiter and Venus also prominent in the sky. There
has been no past case where all three were visible during a violation of
the 4th Amendment, so he couldn't possibly have know the 4th Amendment
applied under those circumstances.

So sorry. Case dismissed."