Articles Posted in Supreme Court Decisions

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”

An important decision was handed down by the Supreme Court last week when the justices decided that police officers do not have the authority to stop and hold those who have already left a residence that they’ve come to search.

The case, about the limits of an officer’s ability to hold a possible suspect related to a search, was decided 6-3. Bailey v. U.S., forced the Court to consider the precedent set by an earlier case from 1981, Michigan v. Summers, which created the right for police officers to stop those in a residence while they are there to execute a search warrant. The Summers case allowed officers to temporarily hold those who were on the premises even if they did not have a specific reason to suspect them of having engaged in any illegal activities.

This idea of holding someone on the premises of a search was put to the test in the recent Bailey case which began in 2005. Officers in upstate New York stopped a man, Chunon Bailey, and attempted to hold him even though he was more than a mile away from the residence the officers had been sent to search. Officers who stopped the man found evidence that linked him to drugs and weapons later located in the house.

The Supreme Court heard the case and disagreed with prosecutors who argued the principle set forth in Summers ought to be extended to the facts of the present case. The justices instead decided that the distance, more than a mile away from the residence, was too great to give the police the power to hold someone they suspected of being connected to the house. Justice Kennedy said that the rationale for allowing such detentions disappears when suspects are so physically removed from the house in question.

Continue reading

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Do I have to perform the field sobriety tests when I’m pulled over for DWI in NC?”

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that sides with police dogs after the Florida Supreme Court attempted to impose harsh standards on using drug-sniffing dogs to justify a car search.

The case involved a drug dog named Aldo who did his duty and alerted his handler that that there was possible contraband in a truck that had been detained during a traffic stop. When a search was performed the police failed to find any of the drugs that Aldo had been trained to locate. Instead, they discovered a variety of ingredients that were used to make meth. Aldo’s handler guessed that the dog might have been responding to meth residue on the door handles to the vehicle. Though Aldo was trained to detect meth itself, the dog did not have the ability to detect the individual components that were in the truck.

The Florida Supreme Court deemed the search unconstitutional, saying that prosecutors failed to show Aldo was reliable enough to prove that there was probable cause to search the truck. The Florida High Court said prosecutors should have introduced the dog’s training records and field performance reviews as well as other objective evidence that could demonstrate Aldo’s reliability.

The Supreme Court flatly rejected such a strict standard, voting unanimously to overrule the requirements imposed by the Florida Supreme Court. The justices decided that dog-sniffing evidence should be handled like all other evidence related to probable cause and defendants should be given the chance to challenge the reliability of a dog’s senses given the “totality of the circumstances.”

Continue reading

A recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court will result in a clarification regarding rules of double jeopardy in the criminal justice system. The case involves a man, Lamar Evans, who was acquitted of burning down a vacant house after the judge presiding over his trial incorrectly required prosecutors to prove more than they had to.

According to Reuters , the Supreme Court must now decide whether Evans can be tried again for the crime following the botched first attempt. A decision will likely have to wait until the end of June, but it could be an important one, creating an exception to what has been a steadfast rule against suspected criminals being tried twice for the same crime.

When the hearing was conducted last week week, the justices appeared torn over how to balance the protection afforded by the double jeopardy rule against the danger of setting guilty people free by refusing to allow prosecutors to try the case a second time.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that he always understood the rule to require that prosecutors get one fair shot to convict someone. However, he said, “It does seem to me that if they had been thrown out of court because of a legal error, it’s not a fair shot.” Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the defense attorney’s client might have gotten a “windfall” through a wrongful acquittal. “Your client walks away the winner when he shouldn’t have,” she said.

In Evans’ case, two officers in Detroit caught him in 2008 running with a can of gasoline away from a burning house. Investigators later found that gas had been poured across various rooms to accelerate the fire. Evans’ lawyer at the time pushed for the judge to instruct prosecutors to prove that the house was a dwelling at the time of the fire, even though state law did not require such evidence. The government was unable to meet the burden of proof and the judge then said that Evans was acquitted.

The Michigan Supreme Court later ruled 4-3 that Evans should be retried because the original acquittal was based on an error of law that did not address the facts of the specific crime. Because the problem was a legal one and not a factual one, the Michigan Court said there was no double jeopardy problem.

Continue reading

The Supreme Court appears to be considering hearing a case this term regarding a law that allows law enforcement to take DNA samples of everyone arrested in the state before the individual has even been convicted of any crime. Something many people in North Carolina may be unaware of is that a law passed last year in the state that allows law enforcement officials to do just that, take a DNA sample once someone has been arrested. The DNA Database Act requires law enforcement to take cheek swabs (a quick method for collecting DNA) of those arrested in North Carolina for having committed certain crimes.

The law was championed as a tool to help law enforcement find and capture those who commit serious offenses in the state, but opponents of the law argue that it allows law enforcement to trample on the 4th Amendment rights of those who have been arrested but not yet convicted of anything. These opponents of the law argue that DNA samples represent an unreasonable search and seizure of private information when the person has only been accused and not convicted of a serious offense.

Prior to the DNA Database Act being passed in 2011, police had to obtain a warrant for DNA evidence before they were legally allowed to collect it. For those who are later acquitted or have their charges dismissed, their DNA information is supposed to be removed from the statewide database. Whether this is actually happening is another story entirely.

DNA is a powerful tool that law enforcement can use to potentially tie a person to a crime or crime scene when other evidence is lacking. Adding DNA to the state and national database is expected to help close multiple cases that have gone cold, often because the existing physical evidence, without DNA, was not enough to lead investigators to the perpetrator.

Continue reading

The Supreme Court gave word earlier this week that it would hear a case that concerned the power of police officers to give involuntary blood tests to those arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. The case could be an important one given that it will impact the reading of the Fourth Amendment protections regarding search and seizures and their relationship to forced blood tests.

The case name is Missouri v. McNeely and began as a traffic stop back in 2010. The officer pulled the man, Tyler McNeely, over early in the morning for a routine speeding violation when the officer began to suspect that McNeely was intoxicated. The officer requested that McNeely perform several field sobriety tests which he failed. McNeely then refused to submit to a blood alcohol test after being asked by the officer. After refusing, McNeely was taken to a clinic where the officer ordered a medical technician to draw his blood without his consent. The test results showed that he was indeed intoxicated.

Before trial McNeely’s lawyer attempted to suppress the involuntarily taken blood sample, saying that the arresting officer never received a search warrant authorizing the seizure. The prosecution vehemently disagreed, and said that the officer was authorized to take the test immediately because had he failed to do so the alcohol in McNeely’s system would have diminished as quickly as it was metabolized.

The lower court judge sided with the defense attorney and ordered the suppression of the blood test. This decision was reversed by a state appeals court and then reversed again by the Missouri Supreme Court which affirmed the decision of the lower court. The Missouri Supreme Court said that the officer was within his right to order the blood test given the exigent circumstances of the rapidly diminishing alcohol.

Continue reading

A few months back the Supreme Court heard arguments surrounding two new cases up for review. Both involved the question of just how severe a penalty imposed on a juvenile offender must be before it is declared unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

The first case, Miller v. Alabama, involved a 14-year-old in Alabama who beat an older man to death and subsequently burned his house down. Evan Miller, the teen, and a friend stole a collection of baseball cards and $300 from a neighbor. They attacked the man with a baseball bat, and killed him when they set fire to his home. The second case, Jackson v. Hobbs, involved another 14-year-old boy in Arkansas who, along with two older boys, tried to rob a video store in 1999. One of the older boys involved in the robbery shot and killed the store clerk as he was going to call the police. Both Mr. Miller and Mr. Jackson received mandatory sentences of life without parole for murder.

Proponents for harsh penalties point to the “sanctity of life” as the reason a juvenile should be sentenced harshly for crimes involving killings. Their age should not be an excuse for punishment given the severity of their crimes. However, in oral arguments, Justice Ginsburg turned the argument around, noting that the same interest in the sanctity of an individual’s life could be used as justification for not severely punishing young offenders. By imposing a life sentence without the possibility on a 14-year-old, the state has essentially thrown away that person’s life.

Those opposed to handing down such harsh sentences believe that teenagers are immature and should be given a more lenient punishment because of that inexperience. While they acknowledge a life sentence is appropriate in such heinous situations, they believe that tacking away even the hope of parole is a step too far for such young criminals. Proponents of harsh punishment worry that teens have less incentive to commit such crimes in the future if they know that all they have to do is claim immaturity when they’re caught.

Continue reading