OK, Legal Eagles, here's today's Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

[elleng]

In Case Testing Police Liability in Shootings, Supreme Court Shows Divide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/us/supreme-court-law-enforcement-los-angeles-sheriff.html?

For the uninitiated, 'argument has turned on whether the warrantless search, a violation of constitutional rights, was the “proximate cause” that made the deputies liable for the shooting, or if it was merely a contributing factor.'

[Renew Deal]

1. I think you named the wrong case

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/county-of-los-angeles-v-mendez/

[RedWedge]

2. Palsgraf helped establish proximate cause.

Hence the "today's" in the OP head.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Palsgraf v. LIRR was a famous old case that discussed proximate cause.

I think the OP was throwing that out there for the sake of discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.

[elleng]

4. Thanks, Ocelot!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. You might look at it as a "but - for" question:

But for the failure of the police to get a warrant to enter the building, would the incident have occurred? And would there have been a shootout if the cops had arrived with a warrant?

[elleng]

6. Right, might do so.

I enjoyed reading this, my least favorite Justice and my most favorite:

'The deputies’ failure to warn before entering the shack could be deemed improper, and was more directly linked to the shooting. But the Ninth Circuit ruled that it was not clear in 2010 that the “knock and announce” rule the courts have espoused would apply to a building like a shack.

Using that rule to support the plaintiffs, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said, “You end up imposing liability for what is arguably a violation of best police practices.”

But Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned the need to break the incident down moment by moment to find liability. “The background circumstances can be such that there is no justification for the whole ball of wax,” he said.'

[msanthrope]

7. Shitty legal reporting by a non-lawyer. It's not the warrantless search..

It's the failure to knock and announce that's the gravaman here. This is going to get returned to the Court of appeals, and its going to narrow the provocation rule. I think the 9th made a serious error in not stating the k&a was a clear 4th violation. Would not be surprised if qualified immunity wins the day.