Court Opinion

ID: 9484178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:43:03.273027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:04.362285
License: Public Domain

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Parts I.A and I.B of the court’s opinion show convincingly that defendants Spencer and Frye did not violate Cornfield’s rights. I join these portions of the opinion. The discussions of qualified immunity and municipal liability in Parts I.C and II are unnecessary, and I do not join them. Because Spencer and Frye did no wrong this case is over, and the opinion should end with that conclusion.
Spencer and Frye presented a defense of qualified immunity because they wanted to avoid paying damages were we to agree with Cornfield on the merits. Cornfield argued that Spencer and Frye were following or had set a municipal “policy” because he wanted a deep pocket from which to collect damages were we to hold the search unconstitutional. Both of these subjects lose their significance once we conclude, as we have, that the individual defendants respected Cornfield’s constitutional rights. Having made the litigants’ contentions irrelevant, we should withhold comment. Our views about these subjects are advisory — pertinent to some other case, perhaps, but inconsequential to this one. That the parties have mooted a subject that turns out to be irrelevant is neither reason nor authority for judicial exegesis on the matter.