Category: Search and Seizure

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided Caniglia v. Strom, No. 20-157:

Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community care-taking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. Id., at 441. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these “caretaking” duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. It does not. Continue reading . . .

CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger was featured yesterday (3/29) on a Federalist Society podcast.  The Supreme Court decision in Torres v. Madrid.  The podcast can be accessed using this link. See also this post.

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a search-and-seizure case for full briefing and argument. The case involves procedural questions regarding (1) the termination of the criminal case before the seized person can sue for damages and (2) the burden of proof on the existence of exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry. [See update below.] Continue reading . . .

The U.S. Supreme Court today took up two cases for full briefing and argument. United States v. Cooley, No. 19-1414, is an exclusionary rule case involving the authority of tribal officers to stop non-Indians on tribal land. Caniglia v. Strom, No. 20-157, is a civil suit regarding whether the “community caretaking” exception to the search warrant requirement extends to entry into a home. Continue reading . . .

This term the Supreme Court seems to be interested in the law of arrests. Last week, the Court held oral argument in the case of Torres v. Madrid on the subject of what is a “seizure.” (My FedSoc podcast is here.) The common law rules on what is an “arrest” figured prominently in the argument, although there is some question of whether an arrest is necessarily a seizure.

On Monday, in an order that attracted little notice among more politically hot potatoes, the Court took up the case of Lange v. California, No. 20-18. Lange raises the question of whether a person evading arrest for a misdemeanor can thwart the pursuit, at least for the time being, by running into his home.
Continue reading . . .

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 . . .

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 . . .