Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 213.0

52 

MICHIGAN  v.  FISHER 

Stevens, J., dissenting 

not persuaded that he did, but even if we make that assump­
tion,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  Court  is  justiﬁed  in  micro­
managing the day-to-day business of state tribunals making 
fact-intensive  decisions  of  this  kind.  We  ought  not  usurp 
the  role  of  the  factﬁnder  when  faced  with  a  close  ques­
tion of the reasonableness of an ofﬁcer’s actions, particularly 
in  a  case  tried  in  a  state  court.  I  therefore  respectfully 
dissent.