Will Bode

Yeah. Well, you know, there's a passage in one of the court's other infamous exclusionary rule cases, Herring v. United States, where the court says that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to negligent violations.

Yeah. Well, you know, there's a passage in one of the court's other infamous exclusionary rule cases, Herring v. United States, where the court says that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to negligent violations.

But it doesn't apply to mere negligence. And they say this is objective. They say by negligence, we mean objective negligence, whatever that is.

But it doesn't apply to mere negligence. And they say this is objective. They say by negligence, we mean objective negligence, whatever that is.

Yeah, there's this part where Justice Kavanaugh keeps pressing and saying, you know, like, I think what people want to know is, you know, can you jump on the car? Do you jump on the car or not? Do you jump on the car or not? As if I mean, now, I don't know whether the court thinks it knows the answer to when you're supposed to jump on the car.

Yeah, there's this part where Justice Kavanaugh keeps pressing and saying, you know, like, I think what people want to know is, you know, can you jump on the car? Do you jump on the car or not? Do you jump on the car or not? As if I mean, now, I don't know whether the court thinks it knows the answer to when you're supposed to jump on the car.

And maybe it's trying to set up for some version of, well, of course, we don't know. The ultimate question is, do you jump on the car? And we have no idea. And therefore, the officer wins. I take it as what he probably thinks, but.

And maybe it's trying to set up for some version of, well, of course, we don't know. The ultimate question is, do you jump on the car? And we have no idea. And therefore, the officer wins. I take it as what he probably thinks, but.

The other thing I was going to ask is, Dorian, does it make sense that we rule-ify the searches stuff and don't rule-ify the excessive force stuff? Because they're both, from my naive mind, they're both Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. And so you'd think, I could imagine the case for just being standards for everything. I could imagine the case for rules.

The other thing I was going to ask is, Dorian, does it make sense that we rule-ify the searches stuff and don't rule-ify the excessive force stuff? Because they're both, from my naive mind, they're both Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. And so you'd think, I could imagine the case for just being standards for everything. I could imagine the case for rules.

But is there a good case for, like, there should be lots of rules for when you can search the car, but all standards for when you can shoot the driver?

But is there a good case for, like, there should be lots of rules for when you can search the car, but all standards for when you can shoot the driver?

And isn't some of this also set up by Scott versus Harris? That's the first of these excessive force cases where the court says, yeah, I mean, normally you would let these things go to trial, but it's on video. So we just watched the video. We're going to tell you whether it's unreasonable. And so it seems like maybe I'm wrong. It seems like there's a special civil procedure exception there.

And isn't some of this also set up by Scott versus Harris? That's the first of these excessive force cases where the court says, yeah, I mean, normally you would let these things go to trial, but it's on video. So we just watched the video. We're going to tell you whether it's unreasonable. And so it seems like maybe I'm wrong. It seems like there's a special civil procedure exception there.

For videos, because everybody can watch them and have their own view. And then, of course, we know from like research by Dan Gahan and other people that it turns out you and I might both watch the video and not see the same thing. But that doesn't seem to.

For videos, because everybody can watch them and have their own view. And then, of course, we know from like research by Dan Gahan and other people that it turns out you and I might both watch the video and not see the same thing. But that doesn't seem to.

Your anti-qualified immunity hawk? Yeah. I mean, you know, the – it has this rule sort of reminiscent of our habeas discussion earlier that like, well, when it's – you know, when it's really obviously unconstitutional, then there's no immunity. And sometimes these cases that turn on the facts, it can seem really obviously unconstitutional. But – Yeah.

Your anti-qualified immunity hawk? Yeah. I mean, you know, the – it has this rule sort of reminiscent of our habeas discussion earlier that like, well, when it's – you know, when it's really obviously unconstitutional, then there's no immunity. And sometimes these cases that turn on the facts, it can seem really obviously unconstitutional. But – Yeah.

It's also a little strange given where we started that we have the good faith exception exclusionary rule, which seems to keep the court out of a lot of cases because it doesn't really matter. You could imagine the same thing would be true of excessive force cases where the court would say, well, it's not really going to matter because ultimately the guy's going to get qualified immunity anyway.

It's also a little strange given where we started that we have the good faith exception exclusionary rule, which seems to keep the court out of a lot of cases because it doesn't really matter. You could imagine the same thing would be true of excessive force cases where the court would say, well, it's not really going to matter because ultimately the guy's going to get qualified immunity anyway.