Going against what seemed to be the direction of the precedents and the holdings of most lower courts, the Supreme Court increased government power to conduct strip searches of anyone placed in the general jail population, even if the placement is temporary. There is no requirement of any reasonable suspicion or that the person be arrested for a drug, weapons or violent crime. Justice Kennedy voted with the conservatives to allow the search. The liberals dissented. I go with them on this one. Kennedy and the conservatives have consistently, but not always, voted against Fourth Amendment rights and the exclusionary rule. As on wag put it: "Civil liberties are so pre-9-11."
Showing posts with label Fourth Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fourth Amendment. Show all posts
Courts fight back against the police state in Memphis and Shelby County
48 hours holds ruled a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Looks like some public officials need a refresher course on Fourth Amendment law.
One of worst opinions of the term: S.Ct. gives cops qualified immunity
Terrible decision granting qualified immunity to police officers. Any idiot could have seen that the affidavit did not contain probable cause for the scope of the search authorized in the warrant. Conservative authoritarianism coupled with liberal dislike for guns resulted in one of the worst opinions of the term. The Supreme Court had dumbed down the standards for officers and has dumbed down Fourth Amendment protections. I agree with the dissenters, Sotomayor and Ginsburg, who wrote:
"The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause is "to protect against all general searches." Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357 (1931). The Fourth Amendment was adopted specifically in response to the Crown's practice of using general warrants and writs of assistance to search "suspected places" for evidence of smuggling, libel, or other crimes. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 625-626 (1886). Early patriots railed against these practices as "the worst instrument of arbitrary power" and John Adams later claimed that "the child Independence was born" from colonists' opposition to their use. Id., at 625 (internal quotation marks omitted).
To prevent the issue of general warrants on "loose, vague or doubtful bases of fact," Go-Bart Importing Co., 282 U. S., at 357, the Framers established the inviolable principle that should resolve this case: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . and particularly describing the . . . things to be seized." U. S. Const., Amdt. 4. That is, the police must articulate an adequate reason to search for specific items related to specific crimes.
In this case, police officers investigating a specific, non-gang-related assault committed with a specific firearm (a sawed-off shotgun) obtained a warrant to search for all evidence related to "any Street Gang," "[a]ny photographs . . . which may depict evidence of criminal activity," and "any firearms." App. 52. They did so for the asserted reason that the search might lead to evidence related to other gang members and other criminal activity, and that other "[v]alid warrants commonly allow police to search for 'firearms and ammunition.' " See infra, at 8-9. That kind of general warrant is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment.
The Court nonetheless concludes that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was "objectively reasonable." I could not disagree more. All
13 federal judges who previously considered this case
had little difficulty concluding that the police officers' search for any gang-related material violated the Fourth Amendment. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 28-29, 45, n. 7,
73, 94, 157-158. And a substantial majority agreed that the police's search for both gang-related material and all firearms not only violated the Fourth Amendment, but was objectively unreasonable. Like them, I believe that any "reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner's position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 345 (1986).
The Court also hints that a police officer's otherwise unreasonable conduct may be excused by the approval of
a magistrate, or more disturbingly, another police officer. Ante, at 16-18. That is inconsistent with our focus on the objective reasonableness of an officer's decision to submit
a warrant application to a magistrate, and we long ago rejected it. See Malley, 475 U. S., at 345-346.
The Court's analysis bears little relationship to the record in this case, our precedents, or the purposes underlying qualified immunity analysis. For all these reasons,
I respectfully dissent."
"The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause is "to protect against all general searches." Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357 (1931). The Fourth Amendment was adopted specifically in response to the Crown's practice of using general warrants and writs of assistance to search "suspected places" for evidence of smuggling, libel, or other crimes. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 625-626 (1886). Early patriots railed against these practices as "the worst instrument of arbitrary power" and John Adams later claimed that "the child Independence was born" from colonists' opposition to their use. Id., at 625 (internal quotation marks omitted).
To prevent the issue of general warrants on "loose, vague or doubtful bases of fact," Go-Bart Importing Co., 282 U. S., at 357, the Framers established the inviolable principle that should resolve this case: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . and particularly describing the . . . things to be seized." U. S. Const., Amdt. 4. That is, the police must articulate an adequate reason to search for specific items related to specific crimes.
In this case, police officers investigating a specific, non-gang-related assault committed with a specific firearm (a sawed-off shotgun) obtained a warrant to search for all evidence related to "any Street Gang," "[a]ny photographs . . . which may depict evidence of criminal activity," and "any firearms." App. 52. They did so for the asserted reason that the search might lead to evidence related to other gang members and other criminal activity, and that other "[v]alid warrants commonly allow police to search for 'firearms and ammunition.' " See infra, at 8-9. That kind of general warrant is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment.
The Court nonetheless concludes that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was "objectively reasonable." I could not disagree more. All
13 federal judges who previously considered this case
had little difficulty concluding that the police officers' search for any gang-related material violated the Fourth Amendment. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 28-29, 45, n. 7,
73, 94, 157-158. And a substantial majority agreed that the police's search for both gang-related material and all firearms not only violated the Fourth Amendment, but was objectively unreasonable. Like them, I believe that any "reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner's position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 345 (1986).
The Court also hints that a police officer's otherwise unreasonable conduct may be excused by the approval of
a magistrate, or more disturbingly, another police officer. Ante, at 16-18. That is inconsistent with our focus on the objective reasonableness of an officer's decision to submit
a warrant application to a magistrate, and we long ago rejected it. See Malley, 475 U. S., at 345-346.
The Court's analysis bears little relationship to the record in this case, our precedents, or the purposes underlying qualified immunity analysis. For all these reasons,
I respectfully dissent."
Victory for Fourth Amendment.
The U.S.Supreme Court rules that installing a GPS tracking device on the exterior of a vehicle while the vehicle is parked in a public place is a search. Based on prior caselaw, this case could easily have gone the other way.
United States v. Jones, 586 U.S. _____ (January 23, 2012). Now, if we can just keep Big Brother out of other areas of our lives. (Corrected, see later post above)
United States v. Jones, 586 U.S. _____ (January 23, 2012). Now, if we can just keep Big Brother out of other areas of our lives. (Corrected, see later post above)
Important 4th Amend case at Supreme Court--U.S. v. Jones
GPS devices are now commonplace in society and police work. This Supreme Court case will hopefully provide some Fourth Amendment answers.
New high tech tool for police
New high tech tool for police. Based on current Fourth Amendment theory I don't see any problems with this if it happens in a public place and police do not have to restrain the suspect. Restraint would require at least a reasonable suspicion.
Warrantless cellphone searches spreading.
The courts are divided on the issue and the practice is spreading. Hopefully the Supreme Court will settle this Fourth Amendment controversy relatively soon.
Important 4th Amend decision from S.Ct.
In Kentucky v. King, (2011) the Court finally made clear a point that many had already assumed. Police cannot rely on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement if they create or "manufacture" the exigency by engaging in conduct which violates the 4th Amend. Not a new principle for lower courts, but it was nice to see the U.S. Supreme Court adopt that rule. The case was remanded.
4th Amend. Violations in Mich. re cell phones?
Allegations of practices by Mich. State Police which may violate the Fourth Amend.
Allegedly, police are "searching" (scanning) the cell phones of persons during traffic stops.
Stay tuned!
Allegedly, police are "searching" (scanning) the cell phones of persons during traffic stops.
Stay tuned!
Recent Supreme Court decision--Quon case
Now that the Supreme Court's term is drawing to a close, I'll be posting on some of the more important decisions for CL&J. The first case to be discussed is
CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, ET AL., v. QUON ET AL., No. 08-1332, Decided June 17, 2010.
The Court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation when the police department
"searched" the officer’s agency-provided alpha-numeric pager (which could send text messages) without a warrant. Although I think the individual should get the benefit of the doubt in close cases when challenging government action violative of constitutional rights, this case wasn’t even close. The Court unanimously overturned the 9th Circuit (California, Idaho, etc.) which found for the officer. The 9th Circuit is probably the most frequently over-ruled Circuit. Although sometimes they get it right, there are too many left-wing ideologues on that Circuit Court of Appeals who appear to be unwilling to read and apply Supreme Court precedent. LINK
CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, ET AL., v. QUON ET AL., No. 08-1332, Decided June 17, 2010.
The Court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation when the police department
"searched" the officer’s agency-provided alpha-numeric pager (which could send text messages) without a warrant. Although I think the individual should get the benefit of the doubt in close cases when challenging government action violative of constitutional rights, this case wasn’t even close. The Court unanimously overturned the 9th Circuit (California, Idaho, etc.) which found for the officer. The 9th Circuit is probably the most frequently over-ruled Circuit. Although sometimes they get it right, there are too many left-wing ideologues on that Circuit Court of Appeals who appear to be unwilling to read and apply Supreme Court precedent. LINK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)