Talk:Pearson v. Callahan

Decision?
Having just read the slip opinion, it seems that the "questions presented" box is incorrect. The USSC did not actually rule on "consent once removed"; they merely considered whether the officers' actions violated a "clearly established" right under Saucier for the purposes of a qualified immunity suit.

Most of the opinion is devoted to the Saucier question. (Please see my edits on the Saucier article for the disposition of this question.) The final brief section of the opinion concludes that, because state Supreme Courts and a couple/few circuits had accepted the "consent once removed" doctrine as not violating the Fourth, then the officers didn't violate a "clearly established" right. To my reading, the high court did not opine at all on the Constitutionality of "consent once removed."

Hopefully someone with more experience than me can make the appropriate edits to this article. Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)