Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The 5th Circuit Denied a Cop Qualified Immunity, So We Might Be in the Afterlife (Patreon)

Published:
2026-10-05 09:44:32
Imported:
2026-10

Downloads

Content

OA1302 - Qualified immunity can be overcome! In the fifth circuit?! Come hear the good news, and learn some fourth amendment traffic stop rules along the way.

CHECK YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION. Deadlines for your state can be found here.

Cases discussed:

CHECK YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION. Deadlines for your state can be found here.

Rosales v. Terrell, 25-30650 (5th Cir. 2026)

Dashcam footage from the Rosales case

Milligan v Lewis

Reporting on trial of Lewis for alleged misconduct

Rosales v. Bradshaw, (10th Cir. 2023)

USPS v. California et al.

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Files

Comments

John Brown did nothing wrong

Clarification regarding the "objectively reasonable" standard discussed around 34 minutes: it applies to whether officers had reasonable suspicion to make the stop in the first place. It is only relevant in the analysis of whether reasonable suspicion was based on a "mistake of law". The questions become: was there a mistake underyling reasonable suspicion and was that mistake objectively reasonable? It does not apply to other conduct by officers outside the initial basis for reasonable suspicion (like a panicked shooting after the stop). A mistake of law is when officers stop someone for conduct they think is illegal but is not. If that mistake was "objectively reasonable" in the moment, the stop will be legal. Example of an objectively reasonable mistake of law:: Officers see someone roll past what looks like a real stop sign, but is actually a convincing fake put up by a nearby business. Failing to stop at an official, registered government stop sign is illegal and the officers could not have known, in the moment, that the sign was not official. Thus, even though it was not illegal to ignore that fake stop sign, the stop itself passes the objectively reasonable standard. On the other hand, imagine an officer thinks drivers are required to use a turn signal while leaving a private driveway or that crossing double yellow lines is always prohibited (not so in my jurisdiction). These are not objectively reasonable mistakes because officers are supposed to know basic rules of the road and be familiar with traffic law. They are just wrong and enforcing laws that don't exist. A stop based on this type of mistake should be thrown out, along with any other evidence resulting from the stop. Compare this with a mistake of fact - the officer thought he saw you texting while driving but finds that you were holding a granola bar. The stop will usually be upheld (along with evidence of actual crime found during the stop) even if the cell phone ticket is thrown out. The officer was right on the law but not the facts, then stumbled on more evidence in good faith. In most cases, this analysis turns on the nitty gritty details of what officers wrote and said during and immediately after the stop. Here, I would have to guess there is a flaw in the allegations making up whatever charge is listed as the initial reason for the stop. We might not have the whole record if this was adjudicated at an early stage (maybe it was fleshed out during dismissal of the registration ticket). Maybe the officers figured the registration ticket was airtight so they led with that, only to realize later that they could not possibly have developed reasonable suspicion about it before actually stopping the driver and talking to him. I could also imagine the failure to signal ticket was a mistake of law for some fact specific reason. It sounds like the officers are sort of throwing out a conclusory argument that it was objectively reasonable in the civil case. The lack of factual support suggests they know they lost the argument already but are repeating a gloss so they don't concede it.

John Brown did nothing wrong

Another thought: I bet the procedural history regarding the mistake of law determination is all spelled out in Rosales' Complaint.

Jenessa Seymour

The “objectively reasonable” standard does apply to other conduct outside the context of the initial stop, at least in civil litigation. It’s a critical issue in excessive force claims for section 1983, including the panicked shooting examples. Officers are entitled to mistakenly believe such force was necessary, even if the plaintiff can clearly establish that in fact the force was not necessary (e.g.: I was holding a phone, not a gun), as long as it was objectively reasonable for a similarly situated officer to believe such force was necessary. This was heavily litigated recently because in one case an officer was pushing for a subjective standard, where as long as that specific officer did believe they were in danger and that the force was necessary, then that was enough. Courts held firm on the objectively reasonable standard instead. The issue in this case was specifically that the officers were arguing they saw him change lanes without signaling, which would be an acceptable mistake of fact (assuming he did in fact signal) justifying the stop, if we take them at their word. But we are supposed to take plaintiff at their word at this stage, meaning not only that he did signal his lane change, but also that the plaintiff is correct in his allegations that the officers *knew* he did signal his lane change and only invented that excuse after the fact. That they had actually stopped him for some other unjustifiable reason. If it’s true that they knew they were making up a reason to pull him over, that cannot be objectively reasonable.

General Contact Unit Problem Child

Jenessa I don’t get why you feel like you can’t tell someone how they should behave in a traffic stop if they’re Latino? Like I get a lay white person saying that, like if it’s just lived experience vs lived experience, but you’re a lawyer.

John Brown did nothing wrong

Thank you for your response. I love the show and sincerely appreciate the work you all do. I see what you're saying. "Objectively reasonable " is indeed a standard used for various discrete tests. I should have set the boundaries for my comment: a single one of those tests (mistake of law/reasonable suspicion in a criminal context). I'm reading between the lines but it seems like that specific analysis must have come up in the criminal case. If resolved in Rosales' favor at the criminal trial court level, it would create a strong record for him to lean on in the civil case. I imagine he pleaded some sort of factual support to that end. I'm curious now and am tempted to find my PACER login. Then again, maybe I'm just knee deep in a post-Ingle hearing brief on mistake of law and consuming all my thoughts

Kroll the Swolbold

Reminder for anyone else in Texas. Today , Monday the 5th, is the last day to register to vote

Alex Cruise

The police were aware of the purpose of the org from the beginning The provincial government gave them space for free The local health region tagged it as an emergency mitigation The same judge convicted them of possession with intent to distribute, but stayed the convictions pending the constitutional challenge

Kroll the Swolbold

One law made by Emperor Muti if given the chance would be a law explicitly stating that cops must be legally assumed to know all rights held by suspects

Jenessa Seymour

Nah there was no criminal trial here. Rosales walked away with two minor tickets that were both dismissed. This is purely civil.

Jenessa Seymour

It’s not that my legal advice would actually change, it’s more like, if someone tells me “I answered the cops’ questions because I felt like if I didn’t they might hurt me”, that’s a non-legal situation and I’m not gonna be like judgmental of someone for that. I don’t have advice for how to avoid getting beat up or shot. That should never happen, and yet it does.

John Brown did nothing wrong

I'm talking about the underlying criminal proceedings, i.e. how and why the tickets were resolved at the state criminal "trial" court level and the impact of those facts in the civil case. I pulled the 1983 complaint to find out more. Rosales alleges that the stated reason for the tickets changed a few times between the arrest and dismissal. That's the kind of post-hoc funny business I look for when challenging a bogus stop as unconstitutional at the outset. Who knows if that swayed the District Court, but it seems plausible to me.

lf

It's sad that "off duty officer" instantly puts me in a negative mood. But what stood out to me is that this officer stalked Rosales, and wasn't specifically called out for it and abuse of power, in direct critical language.