Principles of a lower court's discretion according to SCOTUS

The decision in Beard, comparing the per curiam (unsigned) opinion in Michigan v. Fischer, Stevens and Sotomayor dissenting (opinion here); the Court swoops in to reverse the trial judge and appellate affirmation in Fischer ruling in favor of suppression motion while in Beard narrowly holds on the basis that discretion in the lower courts ought to be preserved.

Makes sense as long as one does not take into account principle too strongly.

Warrant, Searches, and Qualified Immunity

Here is the Scotuswiki on a Supreme Court case that promises to be interesting to say the least. Quickly, the court's oral argument has taken place and further briefing ordered on whether Saucier v Katz (2001) should be overruled. More, after digestion commentary, to be forthcoming.

This is important because the qualified immunity test maintained in Saucier essentially makes it impossible to determine what "clearly established law" is in this context. And that is important because in the absence of a common sense understanding, any arbitrary, unreasonable, boorish and/or stupid conduct of police and other government actors cannot be held to account by the common citizen simply because the bad government actors were unable to determine that their conduct violated or would violate "clearly established law."

GOBAMA! GO!