by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 25, 2021 2:47 pm
As noted in Wednesday’s summary post, the U.S. Supreme Court held that day that the fact that a police officer is in “hot pursuit” of a person believed to have committed a misdemeanor (as opposed to a felony) is not by itself sufficient justification to enter a home with neither consent nor a warrant. The case is Lange v. California, No. 20-18. Continue reading . . .
by Bill Otis · Jun 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Kent did a short introduction of today’s Fourth Amendment case, Lange v. California, and I await his more detailed analysis. In the meantime, I was discussing the case with a defense lawyer friend of mine, a very smart guy and a bit of a cynic. One of his pals said that the CNN summary of the case went, “The U.S. Supreme court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.” My buddy had a different view: “That’s a dead wrong description of an opinion that effectively says the police can do this [a warrantless entry in hot pursuit] 99% of the time and claim good faith the other 1%.”
For most practical purposes in future litigation, that strikes me as pretty much dead on.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 23, 2021 7:26 am
As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that the fact that a police officer is in “hot pursuit” of a person believed to have committed a misdemeanor (as opposed to a felony) is not by itself sufficient justification to enter a home with neither consent nor a warrant. The case is Lange v. California, No. 20-18. There are some interesting nuances here, which I will have more to say about later.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 21, 2021 8:26 am
As the U.S. Supreme Court winds down its October 2020 Term, it decided three civil cases today. They involve securities litigation class actions, antitrust and student athletes, and the Appointments Clause and patent reviews.
No new cases, civil or criminal, were taken up for full review in the next term. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 18, 2021 10:38 am
We put the finishing touches on CJLF’s friend-of-the-court brief in the Marathon Bomber case yesterday. Links will be available to the PDF version here and on our main website Monday after it is filed.
As Bill noted Tuesday, the Government followed through with a brief on the merits seeking reinstatement of the death sentence despite the present Administration’s anti-death-penalty stance. It does appear that the political types stepped back and let the pros do their job. They produced a brief up to the high standards of the Solicitor General’s Office–thoroughly researched and well-written. Continue reading . . .
by Bill Otis · Jun 14, 2021 8:37 pm
Remember all the stuff we were hearing during the Presidential campaign about how we needed to make a change in order to get politics out of the Justice Department? It was all a joke — on us. Ed Whelan has the story today of what would surely be a scandal if Bill Barr tried it, and is a scandal today, squarely on the plate of Merrick Garland — a man I’m sure knows better.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 14, 2021 10:53 am
Amy Howe had this post yesterday on the then-remaining U.S. Supreme Court cases for the term. With Greer/Gary and Terry decided today, that leaves Lange v. California, No. 20-18, as the only criminal case left for the term. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 14, 2021 8:00 am
The Supreme Court decided two cases today dealing with how to address existing cases when the law changes. Greer v. United States, No. 19-8709, addresses the situation where the defense lawyer does not object at trial, because the law seems settled at the time, but the Supreme Court later decides to the contrary. Terry v. United States, No. 20-5904, addresses which inmates convicted prior to the First Step Act can get their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reduced. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 10, 2021 7:27 am
The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a fractured decision that will severely limit the provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act that allowed the federal government to put away habitual felons who commit three violent felonies.
Definitions of crimes generally require both a bad act and a bad state of mind. For many violent crimes in many states, the bad state of mind may be either intentional or reckless. In deciding whether a prior conviction is for a violent crime, the Supreme Court looks only at the definition, not the actual facts of the crime.
Under today’s decision in Borden v. United States, No. 19-5410, violent crimes that could possibly be committed recklessly will no longer be considered “violent” for ACCA purposes no matter how clearly intentional the crime was in the actual case.
There is no majority opinion providing a coherent rationale for this appalling result. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 7, 2021 7:27 am
The U.S. Supreme Court today took up a case on the relationship between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the common law “state secrets” privilege. The Ninth Circuit had held that the procedures in FISA regarding deciding the legality of surveillance displace the traditional privilege. The case is FBI v. Fazaga, No. 20-828. The government’s petition for certiorari is here. Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED