Talk:Pearson v. Callahan

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]