I like how the court ignored a right discussed in Union Pacific Rail Co vs Botsford and Terry v Ohio.
Let me back up a step. Here in Gonzalez, the 7th Circuit goes to a lot of trouble to analyze the wrong the thing, saying OC was not a clearly established right, thus the thugs-with-badges had qualified imboobity.
However, Gonzalez did have a clearly established right that was completely trampled:
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.
Clear and unquestionable authority of law. In excusing their conduct, the court carefully shows the cops had reason to be confused and uncertain about the law on OC. Well, isn't that just grand. The court practically comes right out and says the law on OC was not clear and unquestionable. Yet, there is a right to be free from all restraint and interference unless there is clear and unquestionable authority of law.
So much for courts protecting rights. Not that there is anything new about it when they don't.
But, I suppose its not all the court's fault. They only answer the question before them. So, many thanks to Gonzalez'es lawyers for not including the point in their arguments. </sarcasm>