Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amendment

Re:Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amen... by chmod600 on Friday March 26, 2021 @01:50AM (#26589115)

Are you sure they do in this case? Appeals happen as part of a complex process, and it's possible the question of whether it's OK to shoot a fleeing suspect may not have been before the Court directly.

The Supreme Court has more power to go beyond the question before them than other courts do. But that's mostly because there's nobody to challenge them when they do. For the most part, they avoid ruling too broadly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amen... by boomboomsubban on Friday March 26, 2021 @02:41AM (#26589383)

If the legislature makes a law saying it's OK to shoot an innocent person, the courts should clearly be able to rule on whether that law violates our rights. I'm not 100% sure they do have that ability, but I find it hard to think of why they shouldn't be able to rule on the matter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amen... by chmod600 on Friday March 26, 2021 @11:00AM (#26592958)

The court first needs a case before them. And appeals aren't just "do-overs", they often have a specific question to settle.

Here, the question seems to be "is shooting this person under these circumstances a form of seizure" not "is shooting this person under these circumstances Constituional/good/OK".

[ Parent | on HN ]