Question not identified

Questions Presented IL Rather than applying this Court’s precedents, the Eleventh Circuit held that its “prior panel rule” precluded it from reaching appellant’s arguments. Unlike the Seventh Circuit, which follows stare decisis, the Eleventh Circuit deems its panel decisions unassailable, even by arguments never before considered. Later panels thereby avoid important questions, denying litigants due process and equal protection of law. Does Article III give federal judges the power to decree that panel decisions are not only binding but issue-preclusive as well? Il. As the district court found, the government violated the Fourth Amendment by placing a global-positioning tracker on Richard Senese’s boat with neither a warrant nor probable cause. The trial and appellate courts held the evidence thus seized was nonetheless admissible, reasoning that the authorities would probably have found Mr. Senese adrift on the open sea had they not deliberately disregarded his rights. a. Did the court err in holding the evidence admissible on the basis of conjecture as to what the government might have done had it never installed the tracker? b. Is the doctrine capable of reasoned application or does it primarily serve to encourage notorious and official disregard of the Fourth Amendment? ii