I am a lawyer, and about a third of my cases are representing state employees, and about a third of those involve cases with a "clearly established" defense, though I practice mostly in the Fourth Circuit, not the Ninth.

The "clearly established" standard is a way for courts to keep these kinds of suits from dinging innocent state employees. Basically, not only does the employee have to violate someone's right, but it has to have been pretty much unreasonable for the employee to think ze wasn't violating that right. Here, in fact, the panel didn't even hold that the kid had a right not to have this stuff said to him. So this case won't be precedent for future cases to reach back and say, "Well, as of the time the Corbett opinion was issued, the right not to have a teacher make fun of your religious beliefs was clearly established."

There are several other possible doctrines for protecting an employee in such a situation, and they're all salutary.

Also: I'm not your lawyer. Don't rely on that as legal advice.

Even if you say nothing to the officer who stops you, you can be arrested for any driving infraction, even one that isn't a jailable offense, when you're in your vehicle.

Once you're arrested, you can be searched sans warrant. Once you're arrested, your car can be impounded, and your entire vehicle can be "inventory" searched.

Your car can also be searched sans warrant based on probable cause of any criminal activity, even if you aren't arrested.

Better hope the courts decide your phone is more like a footlocker or a trunk, but good luck with that. The Supreme Court, over the course of about a dozen major Fourth Amendment decisions, has taken a dim view of your right to privacy while in your automobile.

IAAL.

I practice before the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria, and they do not allow anyone, including lawyers, to bring their smartphones in. It's routine to have to look at your calendar on the fly when the judge wants to schedule something, so you have to have it with you. The EDVA policy is the main reason I still maintain a paper calendar parallel to my computer calendar.

I understand and buy into the rationale behind not letting jurors bring them in, but the state courts in the area almost universally allow lawyers to bring their smartphones in, and it's such a bonus.

Excellent! Another rape joke, Now With Pedophilia! You keep it classy, Arthur Grumbine and mods.

Subtext, symbolism, and metaphors are all creative work put in by one or more people. I have never understood the distinction between visual or musical symbolism (since you are satisfied by a trite movie with great visuals and awesome soundtrack) and the (thematic?) metaphors you are talking about. All are integral parts of the creative/artistic experience of watching a film.

Is that what passes for "+5, Insightful" these days? Asking a woman who thinks she was raped not to come forward because of your politics is disgusting and terrifying. Your attitude exemplifies the reason that so many rapes go unreported. If she's not a liar or "regretting it the next morning," she's being politically insensitive.

Anyone who modded this Insightful should turn in their mod points or grow some humanity.

Thank the gods this got moderated up to 5, Insightful. The thread to this point has been filled with all sorts highly modded throwaway "psh, that's not rape, she just regretted it" bullshit which makes me embarrassed to be a Slashdot reader.

I can tell it's truly News for Nerds because I can barely understand what it's saying and it drops causal references to advanced mathematics--the stuff I only wish I'd had the fortitude to study in college.

I'm serious. This is exactly what I want from Slashdot.

Maybe it's just your observation bias. Did you control for that in your highly complex subjective calculations?

The concept of "women's intuition" is from about 100 years ago. If you're going to be sexist, at least update your buzzwords.