Author: Kent Scheidegger

Parks, Crime, and Neighborhoods

by · Apr 17, 2020 1:34 pm

Very often we hear economic arguments being made against effective law enforcement. We can’t afford a law enforcement measure (police, jail space, etc.) because we should be spending that money on some other purpose (schools, parks, etc.). As a matter of common sense, it is obvious that these other worthy goals are worth a lot more if they are safe from crime and a lot less if they are not. Traci Pedersen at Psych Central reports on an empirical study that confirms what common sense has always told us. Continue reading . . .

SF Federal Judge Denies COVID-19 Jailbreak; State Conducting Its Own

by · Apr 17, 2020 10:41 am

The good news is that Federal District Judge Jon Tigar today denied the motion of California inmates to force the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to “ ‘develop a plan to manage and prevent the further spread of COVID-19 in California state prisons’ that includes ‘reduc[ing] population levels to safe and sustainable levels in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.’ ” The bad news is that the state is already reducing population levels on its own by refusing new admissions, pushing the problem back on county jails. Continue reading . . .

Policy-Based Evidence-Making

by · Apr 8, 2020 11:52 am

Steven Hayward at Powerline Blog has this post on appeals to expertise in policy arguments. The specific examples he discusses are off-topic for this blog, but the general point is an issue that comes up often in criminal justice debates. The post includes a particularly nice turn of phrase that I expect to quote often.

Whenever a progressive says we should “follow the evidence” because we must have “evidence-based policy-making,” you should reach for your wallet (for starters). Because today we all too often have the opposite: policy-based evidence-making.

In criminal justice, you don’t need to reach for your wallet. You need to run for your life or reach for your gun. Continue reading . . .

Splintered DC Circuit Vacates Injunction Against Federal Executions

by · Apr 7, 2020 10:10 am

Last November, a federal district judge in DC enjoined all federal executions based on a statute requiring use of the “manner” of execution provided by the law of the state where the conviction was rendered. See this post. Today, a splintered three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the injunction, for now. The division on the panel clearly requires further review, and the court on its own motion stayed the issuance of its mandate to allow it. Continue reading . . .

Parsing the Three Opinions in Kansas v. Glover

by · Apr 6, 2020 4:17 pm

Initially, the 8-1 vote in Kansas v. Glover, noted earlier today, was somewhat surprising. Reading through the three opinions in the case, we see some important differences that go beyond the result on the sparse facts of this case.

The Decision

Procedurally, the case was unusual in that the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was decided on stipulated facts without a hearing. The officer ran the license plate, found that the registered owner had a revoked (not suspended) license, made no effort to identify the driver, and made the stop. That’s it. Continue reading . . .

Stopping a Car Whose Owner Has a Revoked License

by · Apr 6, 2020 9:58 am

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided Kansas v. Glover, No. 18-556, by an 8-1 vote:

This case presents the question whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by initiating an investigative traffic stop after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner has a revoked driver’s license. We hold that when the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is the driver of the vehicle, the stop is reasonable.

Continue reading . . .

Cal. Corona Prison Break Denied, For Now

by · Apr 5, 2020 5:49 pm

As noted here on March 26, the inmates in California’s endless prison lawsuit asked the special three-judge district court for a release order, framing their request as a modification of the prior order. Friday evening, the court denied the motion. They didn’t buy the argument that this was a modification. The inmates are seeking a new release order, and they have to begin at the beginning, through the process mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Continue reading . . .