The SCOTUS will hear argument in two criminal cases this week. Davis is argued today and involves the scope of the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule post-Arizona v. Gant. While the seizure was initially legal, because of a change in the law, it later became unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, J.D.B. will be argued. The Court will be considering the effect that the age of a juvenile has on a determination of "custody." The transcripts, made available soon after arguments, and, better yet, the recordings could entertain with some spirited exchanges.
[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 03-21-11 at .]
Posts: 444 | Location: Austin, Texas, USA | Registered: January 06, 2010
Reading through the arguments on Davis, the justices certainly seemed to be leaning towards applying the good-faith exception. Interesting, though, that the underlying premise of allowing that exception is that the courts had clearly said something was allowed and then changed their minds. I thought in Gant they bent over backwards to point out that this had always been their opinion and it had just been misconstrued a few times.
Posts: 1116 | Location: Waxahachie | Registered: December 09, 2004
The defense appears unable to shift a large stone up a steep hill.
Given the split in the circuits over using search incident to arrest to justify cellphone searches, the brief exchanges between Justices Sotomayor and Scalia and the government attorney were insightful.
[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 03-22-11 at .]
Posts: 444 | Location: Austin, Texas, USA | Registered: January 06, 2010
Does anyone think that the Court will inject an age requirement into Miranda's free to leave prong? As the justices also raised, what about where a person has mental or physical impediments, is an inmate, or a foreign language speaker? Apparently, 11 states already consider age.
Posts: 444 | Location: Austin, Texas, USA | Registered: January 06, 2010
That is the diabolical element of this case, but Miranda is now so well-entrenched it would constitute a major upheaval to change it at this point. Dread the thought but the "evolving standards of decency" may require change!
Posts: 444 | Location: Austin, Texas, USA | Registered: January 06, 2010
Juvenile seems to have been treated well, confessed and was allowed to go home before being arrested. He confessed out of remorse and knowing he had been caught.
This is a far cry from the fears raised in Miranda, where there were handcuffs, isolation from anyone else, hard seat at police station, long interrogation, deprivation of food and drink, threats of beatings and all sorts of coercive elements.
It would be nice if the SCOTUS recognized just how far things have come in how a suspect is treated. If Miranda warnings are the antidote to a coercive atmosphere, then how can they apply at school, which is an environment kids go to every day of the week (when they aren't truant)?
And if judges have to consider age as a subjective factor, then why not all sorts of things, including height, weight, homeschooling, whatever.
The SCOTUS reversed the Fifth Circuit's judgment in Connick v. Thompson today. This is an important case on the responsibility of prosecutor's offices to train under Brady v. Maryland and their liability for not doing so. The High Court requires "deliberate indiffference to the rights of others" and there is no "single-incident" liability here.
[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 03-29-11 at .]
Posts: 444 | Location: Austin, Texas, USA | Registered: January 06, 2010
A fairly divided opinion, but SCOTUS ruled that federal courts can't hold their own hearings and then determine that the state court findings were unreasonable based on evidence they never had in front of them. See Pinholster
Posts: 1116 | Location: Waxahachie | Registered: December 09, 2004
The Court has granted cert in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington No. 10-945, to decide whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search when an individual is arrested for a minor offense.
Police arrested the defendant on an oustanding traffic warrant despite the defendant claiming that he had already paid the fine. Over seven days and in in two different jails, the defendant underwent two strip and visual body-searches. The Third Circuit upheld the search procedure.
I can envisage Justice Kennedy joining the liberal branch of the Court on this one. But, at least, the defendant didn't undergo penetrating cavity searches.
