On Point blog, page 18 of 25
US Supreme Court: Natural dissipation of alcohol does not establish a per se exigency sufficient by itself to justify a warrantless blood draw
Missouri v. McNeely, USSC No. 11-1425, 4/17/13
United States Supreme Court decision, affirming State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012)
In a decision that works a major change in Wisconsin law governing nonconsensual, warrantless blood draws in OWI cases, the U.S. Supreme Court holds the evanescent quality of alcohol in a suspect’s bloodstream does not in and of itself create an exigent circumstance:
The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.
US Supreme Court: Taking drug-sniffing dog onto porch is a search
Florida v. Jardines, USSC No. 11-564, 3/26/13
United States Supreme Court decision, affirming Jardines v. State, 73 So. 3d 34 (2011)
In this 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court holds that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s front porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Because the search was conducted without probable cause,
Federal habeas court must presume the state court adjudicated the defendant’s claims on the merits
Johnson v. Williams, USSC No. 11-465, 2/20/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing and remanding Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2011)
When a defendant convicted in state court raises a federal claim and a state court rules against the defendant in an opinion that addresses some issues but does not expressly address the federal claim in question, the federal habeas court must presume (subject to rebuttal) that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits:
….AEDPA sharply limits the circumstances in which a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner whose claim was “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.
Double jeopardy bars retrial where judge directed verdict based on erroneous view that state failed to prove an element that was not really an element
Evans v. Michigan, USSC No. 11-1327, 2/20/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing People v. Evans, 491 Mich. 1, 810 N.W.2d 535 (2012)
A trial judge entered a directed verdict of acquittal in favor of Evans after concluding the state had not provided sufficient evidence of a particular element of the offense. A state appellate court later ruled that the unproven “element” was not actually an element at all and thus ordered a retrial.
Evidence needed to establish reliability of drug-sniffing dog for purposes of determining probable cause
Florida v. Harris, USSC No. 11-817, 2/19/13
United States Supreme Court decision, overruling Harris v. Florida, 71 So. 3d 756 (2011)
In a unanimous decision addressing the question of when a drug-sniffing dog’s alert constitutes probable cause, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s requirement that the state produce records of the dog’s reliability in the field in order to support probable cause.
Execution of search warrant — detention of person not in “immediate vicinity”
Bailey v. United States, USSC No. 11-770, 2/19/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing and remanding United States v. Bailey, 652 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2011)
The Court holds it was not reasonable for police to seize an individual incident to the search of the individual’s residence when the individual was not in the “immediate vicinity” of the place being searched. The holding is an elaboration of the rule from Michigan v.
Conspiracy – burden of proof on defendant’s claim of withdrawal
Smith v. U.S., USSC 11-8976, 1/9/13
United States Supreme Court decision, affirming United States v.Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
Conspiracy – burden of proof on defendant’s claim of withdrawal
Petitioner’s claim lies at the intersection of a withdrawal defense and a statute-of-limitations defense. He asserts that once he presented evidence that he ended his membership in the conspiracy prior to the statute-of-limitations period,
Habeas corpus – stay of proceeding due to petitioner’s incompetence
Ryan v. Gonzales, USSC No. 10-930; Tibbals v. Carter, USSC No. 11-218, 1/8/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing In re Gonzalez, 623 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2010), and reversing and remanding Carter v. Bradshaw, 644 F.3d 329 (6th Cir. 2011)
These two cases present the question whether the incompetence of a state prisoner requires suspension of the prisoner’s federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Fines Come Within Apprendi, Jury Determination Required for Determination of Facts Supporting Fine Beyond Statutory Maximum
Southern Union Company v. United States, USSC No. 11-94, 6/21/12, reversing 630 F.3d 17 (1st Cir 2010)
Criminal fines, no less than length of imprisonment, come within the “Apprendi” doctrine, such that a fine beyond the maximum statutory amount must be based on facts decided by the jury. Southern Union was tried for violating environmental laws carrying a fine of up to $50,000 per day in violation.
First Amendment – Stolen Valor Act
United States v. Alvarez, USSC No. 11-210 (6/28/12), affirming 638 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.