fourth amendment
Objects in mirror are as pretextual as they appear
Aug 9th
turn left and go directly to jail
Over 4 years ago, a police officer received an anonymous tip that Gregory Cyrus was driving home drunk. The officer followed Mr. Cyrus, but didn’t observe him driving erratically, which is a feat in of itself given the bullshit usually spewed to justify a stop. Armed with a solid anonymous tip, Mr. Police Officer was at a loss. How was he to stop and arrest this man when he wouldn’t oblige and cross a single yellow line? And then it hit him. He saw Mr. Cyrus driving with what looked like a crucifix hanging from his rear view mirror. “Aha!”, he thought to himself, “I’ve got you now, you-person-who-must-be-drunk-because-someone-told-me-so-and-not-because-I-observed-anything!”
Relying on C.G.S. 14-99(f), the trooper pulled Mr. Cyrus over and arrested him for drunken driving. “Wait, just one Constitutional second!”, said Mr. Cyrus (through his lawyers). “You didn’t have reasonable and articuble artilicuable articulable suspicion to stop me, pursuant to the remnants of Terry v. Ohio!”
A learned trial judge agreed and a former supreme court chief justice reaffirmed that decision. But in the fair not-so-Constitution-al-State (okay, I’ll stop with the hyphenation), a win for the rights of each individual is rarely safe, as there looms the spectre of an almost automatic reversal from the law and order state Supreme Court.
Not today. Not this time. In a split 4-3 decision (more on that in a bit), the highest court of the State upheld the trial and appellate courts, based essentially on one simple proposition: that a stop cannot be based on a hypothetical:
The trial court recognized that there must be more than a hypothetical possibility that the driver’s vision would be obstructed or that he would be distracted to constitute a violation of § 14-99f (c). [Trooper] Mattioli had to have reasonably believed that the statute was being violated or was about to be violated, and he must have been able to articulate this reasonable belief to the court. It would have been improper to conclude that Mattioli reasonably suspected that the chain and cross hanging from the defendant’s rearview mirror was in violation of § 14-99f (c) without regard to whether there was a factual basis for Mattioli to conclude that the defendant’s field of vision appeared to be obstructed or that the defendant appeared to be distracted by the hanging object.
All that’s left to do is mitigate
Jul 2nd
In its pure, unadulterated, un-judicially-activated form, the law – criminal and constitutional – is a beautiful thing. Reflecting on the context in which the Constitution was written, and the way in which its application was envisioned is a source of inspiration.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
These are the rights of individuals – all individuals and checks against the power of the large governmental entities. The Constitution drew a line and on the site that was protected were placed the flesh and blood individuals, the citizenry and on the side that was being warned and whose authority was being severely limited was the abstract, nameless, faceless Government.
What a beautiful concept: we are individuals first and as individuals, we have rights that will not be subordinate to those of an ever-changing abstract concept.
The concept is dying a quick and painful death. It took only 200 odd years for the pendulum to have shifted completely in the opposite direction. By attrition, or force of sensationalism, or crowdsourced fear, the line drawn by the Constitution has turned around and is now facing those very individuals it sought to protect. The idea of individual liberties is so foreign to most, that comes as a surprise to many that the founders fought and fought hard for them.
These protections and rights exist merely as a thorn in the side of the righteous who seek to punish the evil. US vs. criminals. Speeding this disaster is the learned hand of those who are in charge of interpreting and enforcing the august protections enumerated and implied by the Great Document.
Jurisprudence, over the years, has taken an increasingly narrow approach to individuals’ rights, especially those charged and convicted of criminal offenses. The scope of acceptable intrusion by the Government has increased dramatically over the years and the zone of protection surrounding each individual and his possessions has correspondingly narrowed.
Cops want to use collective knowledge to deem that someone carrying two cell phones is a drug dealer and thus about to embark on a baby-killing spree? Allowed. Cops want to use lies and trickery to trap individuals into confessing to things they may or may not have done? Allowed. Prosecutors make impermissible remarks to juries and comment on a defendant’s exercise of his rights? Frowned upon, but the guy was guilty as sin anyway, so it doesn’t matter.
I fear that if one were to embark on the task of writing a book that enumerated the remaining fundamental protections, it may be just long enough to fill Twitter’s 140 character requirement. The Twitstitution.
Really, what 4th amendment rights does one have anymore? Police have to get a warrant? Well, not always. And even in cases where they really should have, it’s mostly okay. What if the prosecutor circumvents the probable cause requirement and adds charges later that aren’t supported by the evidence? Too bad, prove it at trial.
The role of the defense lawyer has gone from Constitutional law expert to mitigation specialist. Cases are won and lost on the facts, not the law. The law is dead to us. A lifeless corpse that taunts us and obstructs us in our efforts to keep the Govermental power in check. There is no longer any confidence backing up an assertion that an act by the police is “clearly illegal”. Frankly, there is no such thing anymore. Courts will find a way to condone whatever improper action we complain about.
“But he’s only 16, judge”, “he didn’t really threaten the use of a gun”, “he’s only doing this because he has a massive drug problem”.
Go to any court and sit in on any pre-trial negotiation and you’ll hear most, if not all defense lawyers use variations of the above. Mitigation specialists.
That’s the only thing left to us: harkening back to the very individuality that the Constitution sought to protect. Each person is an individual, but instead of talking in terms of protection, we now speak of punishment. Each individual is different and must be punished differently.
Guilt upon arrest is but a foregone conclusion. All that remains to be determined is the term. We don’t practice law anymore; there is nothing noble left. We mitigate.
The law is dead and slowly, it’s killing us all too.
Frankly arresting
May 6th
[W]hen the Fourth Amendment demands a factual showing sufficient to comprise `probable cause,’ the obvious assumption is that there will be a truthful showing” (emphasis in original). This does not mean “truthful” in the sense that every fact recited in the warrant affidavit is necessarily correct, for probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant’s own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily. But surely it is to be “truthful” in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.
Justice Blackmun, in Franks v. Delaware, quoting Judge Frankel in US v. Halsey. Franks, of course, permits a defendant to challenge the veracity of the statements in a search warrant. If he makes a substantial showing that the affidavit contains intentional falsehoods or material omissions, then he gets an evidentiary hearing to prove..umm..that there are falsehood or misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit.
But Franks applies only to search warrants. What of the scenario where the officer intentionally lies to get a judge to sign a warrant for an arrest? There has to be judicial review of an arrest warrant and a finding of probable cause. But since we know officers lie, what if an officer lied to get a person arrested? Is there any remedy for that? I’ve been asked this question more than a few times over the last month and was a topic of discussion on the local listserve today, so I figure it’s about time I write a post on it.
There is a remedy, sort of. It’s more of a hollow remedy. In State v. Dolphin, the Connecticut supreme court, without explicitly stating so, applied the Franks analysis to an arrest warrant. As with the search warrant, a defendant attacking the validity of an arrest warrant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the falsehoods contained in the warrant, or the material omissions would defeat probable cause:
Pretextual trespass
May 3rd
In an effort to combat drug crime in “minority high crime neighborhoods”, police long ago adopted the “pretextual stop”, which was later condoned by SCOTUS in Whren. In Whren, Scalia wrote:
Not only have we never held, outside the context of inventory search or administrative inspection (discussed above), that an officer’s motive invalidates objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment; but we have repeatedly held and asserted the contrary. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 584, n. 3 (1983), we held that an otherwise valid warrantless boarding of a vessel by customs officials was not rendered invalid “because the customs officers were accompanied by a Louisiana state policeman, and were following an informant’s tip that a vessel in the ship channel was thought to be carrying marihuana.” We flatly dismissed the idea that an ulterior motive might serve to strip the agents of their legal justification. In United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), we held that a traffic-violation arrest (of the sort here) would not be rendered invalid by the fact that it was “a mere pretext for a narcotics search,” id., at 221, n. 1; and that a lawful postarrest search of the person would not be rendered invalid by the fact that it was not motivated by the officer-safety concern that justifies such searches, see id., at 236. See also Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U. S. 260, 266 (1973). And in Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 138 (1978), in rejecting the contention that wiretap evidence was subject to exclusion because the agents conducting the tap had failed to make any effort to comply with the statutory requirement that unauthorized acquisitions be minimized, we said that “[s]ubjective intent alone . . . does not make otherwise lawful conduct illegal or unconstitutional.” We described Robinson as having established that “the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.” 436 U. S., at 136, 138.
While the pretextual stop is almost exclusively thought of in the motor vehicle context (what with it being a stop and all…), I recently came across the use of a pretext to police drug activity in the non motor vehicle area. [A Lexis search for trespass and Whren and trespass and pretext yielded no meaningful results. Yes, I am that much of a nerd.]
Apparently, police departments in some parts of the state have taken to entering into “criminal trespass agreements” (or some such variation: the public defender I got this from wasn’t entirely clear so blame him, not me). What this essentially means is this: the property owner will enter into a contract with the police department, giving them permission to enforce the criminal trespass statutes. The property owner then provides the police department with a list of the properties and the names of all the residents in those locations. There may or may not be signs to that effect posted on the property.
All drivers are dangerous and the police are the Borg
Apr 26th
Consider the facts:
On April 1, 2006, Officers Craig Miller, David Rivera and Charles Gargano of the New Haven police department were patrolling the Fair Haven neighborhood as part of their duties with that city’s drug interdiction unit. The neighborhood was known for frequent drug trafficking activity. The officers were in an unmarked patrol car, operated by Rivera. At approximately 5:15 p.m., the officers observed a Chevrolet Impala turn right from Ferry Street onto Grand Street without signaling. The officers followed the Impala around the block, during which time they also observed that the defendant, who was operating the car, was not wearing a seat belt. Pursuant to police department policy, the officers called dispatch to request a marked cruiser in order to effectuate a motor vehicle violation stop.
Three marked patrol cars responded to the dispatch call, and stopped the Impala at the corner of Ferry Street and Grand Street. The unmarked patrol car stopped approximately one half of a car length behind the Impala. While still in their unmarked patrol car, Rivera, Miller and Gargano observed the defendant make a movement toward his right side, which led them to believe that the defendant might be concealing a weapon. The three officers then approached the Impala. As they were approaching, Miller observed the defendant close the center console in the front seat.
Rivera removed the defendant from the vehicle, handcuffed him, and frisked him for weapons. While frisking the defendant for weapons, Rivera discovered $1369 in cash and several cell phones on his person. At the same time, Miller and Gargano, as well as several officers from the other patrol cars, removed the two passengers from the vehicle, handcuffed them, and frisked them for weapons. Miller then returned to the car and observed some plastic protruding from the center console. He opened the console and removed plastic bags that he believed to contain crack cocaine. The officers also determined that the Impala was owned by a rental car company. Subsequent testing revealed that the bags discovered in the console contained approximately 21.5 grams of freebase cocaine, commonly referred to as crack cocaine.
So, let’s recap, in normalspeak: officers were in a “minority high crime neighborhood”, looking for an excuse to pull someone over. They saw the defendant commit a motor vehicle violation. They pulled the car over and saw the defendant “make a movement toward his right side” (whatever the hell that means) and decide not only that he was armed, but because he was in a “MHCN”, he was dangerous and probably selling drugs. They handcuffed everybody and searched them and the car with impunity. We now contort ourselves to affirm this stream of clearly illegal activity by the police.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress relying on Arizona v. Gant, which holds that once you have arrested the occupants of the vehicle, there is no more legitimate “officer safety concern”, so a warrant must be obtained.
The Court rejects (emphatically!) the defendants contention that Gant applies since the defendant wasn’t technically arrested until after the drugs were discovered and instead agrees with the State that the “protective search” rubric of Michigan v. Long must control. In Long, the Supreme Court said that the:
purpose of protective searches to be the concern that if the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to . . . [go free], and he will then have access to any weapons
and thus, when analyzing a warrantless search under Long:
our focus is on whether the officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that the defendant posed a danger and might access the vehicle to gain control of a weapon.
Well, clearly, since the defendant wasn’t actually arrested and merely in a state of “custodial arrest (maybe)”, the question then becomes whether the officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he posed a danger and that there was a weapon in the vehicle.
Remember now, that this was in a “minority high crime neighborhood” and that all three officers saw a “movement to his right side” and one saw him “close the center console”. That same officer then innocently “returned to the car” and saw “some plastic protruding” from that very same center console.
But that’s not enough, is it? Surely even the CT Supreme Court would not hold that that is sufficient to conduct a warrantless search of a motor vehicle? Of course not. Which is why we have the “collective knowledge of law enforcement” exception to the Fourth Amendment.
In conducting this analysis, we are cognizant of ‘‘the well settled principle that, in testing the amount of evidence that supports probable cause, it is not the personal knowledge of the arresting officer, but the collective knowledge of the law enforcement organization at the time of the arrest that must be considered. See Poulos v. Pfizer, Inc., 244 Conn. 598, 619 (1998) (McDonald, J., concurring) (Fourth amendment law recognizes that the collective knowledge of the police determines probable cause. See Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 568 [1971]; see 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure [3d Ed. 1996] § 3.5 [b], p. 259 n.46.); State v. Acquin, 187 Conn. 647, 657 (1982) (when we test the quantum of [evidence supporting] probable cause, it is not the personal knowledge of the arresting officer but the collective knowledge of the law enforcement organization at the time of the arrest which must be considered)’’
Justice Who?
Miller and Rivera saw the defendant “make a movement to his right side”, Miller saw the defendant close the center console, Rivera frisked the defendant and pulled out a gun-like cell phone and cash, and Miller saw the plastic in the console. Of course, they all knew that it was a minority high crime area. And there was testimony that Miller and Rivera shared their observations and findings with one another. Wait, there wasn’t? Oh nevermind. Their knowledge is imputed onto one another.
In fact, applying Whiteley, why stop there? What if Rivera wasn’t on the scene and hadn’t discovered the call signs of drug activity: cell phones and cash? Wherever he was, he must’ve known that those items indicate drug activity. And Officer Krupke, on his beat at the other end of town surely knows that anyone who has cell phones and cash is an armed and dangerous drug dealer! So, of course, the officer at the scene had articulable and reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle. And look, they don’t even have to arrest anyone! Wheee!!!
Because anyone in the police department anywhere is cognizant of the fact that if you’re driving in a minority high crime neighborhood without a seatbelt and you make a movement to your right side and close the center console and happen to have cash and a cell phone, you must be an armed and dangerous drug kingpin. It’s in their – and your – DNA.
Welcome to the 24th Century, where the police are the Borg. The Fourth Amendment will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Don’t drive.
[A plea: if anyone figures out what "movement to his right side" means, please leave a comment. I have no fucking clue. Kthxbai.]
State v. DNA profile
Jan 26th
In these days of DNA, scientific and forensic evidence, it was bound to happen. As this very interesting (and lengthy) opinion from the California Supreme Court details, a “John Doe” warrant issued mere days before the statute of limitations was set to expire, identifying the defendant only by his DNA profile, satisfies the “particularity” requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
The DNA was taken from a crime scene (and victim) in 1994 and after the issuance of the warrant, a cold hit matched the profile to that of the defendant. Only problem is, the DNA taken from the defendant was in violation of then-existing CA law.
The defendant raised several challenges to the warrant: that since the DNA was taken in violation of the law, it was in violation of the 4th Amendment; that this triggered the exclusionary rule; and that the warrant was not specific enough because it was issued in the name of “John Doe”.
You can image the usual responses to such claims. The court relies on the abomination that is Virginia v. Moore to dispense with the first argument: that just because state law prohibits something, doesn’t mean it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The second is dealt with by regurgitating the very narrow reading of the exclusionary rule (and the third argument was just plain silly to begin with).
This shouldn’t be a problem anymore for most states, since the statute of limitations for all sex crimes is now one googol years (an actual number). But the case is a curious oddity nonetheless and it is my solemn sworn duty to bring this to your attention.
QED
Reconfiguring terms
Jan 24th
It really grinds my gears when I hear lay people (read: tv and movie writers, newscasters, media, your mother, my mother) use the term technicality to describe a violation of some Constitutional right. As in: “The judge threw out the case because of a bad search or something”, “The guy kills a cop and he gets off on some technicality?” or “He was so guilty, but his lawyer got him off on some technicality”.
So here’s my proposal. Let’s start replacing real phrases for the meaningless and incendiary “technicality”. For example, a search that violates the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures shall henceforth be called “police misconduct”.
A conviction that’s reversed because the prosecutor “forgot” to turn over potentially exculpatory information should be called “prosecutorial dishonesty”.
A case that’s dismissed for lack of probable cause should be called “fabrication of evidence” or “prosecutorial bloodlust”.
“The judge threw out the case because of police misconduct” sure has a better, more truthful ring to it.
Any more ideas?
Drunk driving is different
Oct 20th
Ordinarily, on a criminal law blog, the words “is different” would usually be preceded by the word “death” and an accompanying rant about the futility of the death penalty and the special standards to be applied in deciding whether a State should be in the killing business (I do not disappoint: see next post). However, today we learn that our esteemed Chief Justice uses another “d” word to finish that sentence: drunk driving.
In an odd little dissent from the denial of cert in Virginia v. Harris, Chief Justice Roberts essentially argues that anytime police receive an anonymous tip that someone is driving drunk and they find that person, they should be able to pull them over and conduct an investigatory stop.
The story in Harris essentially was that some woman called the cops refusing to give her name, but said that Harris was driving drunk in a green Altima and wearing a striped shirt. The police found a green Altima in the general vicinity of where she said it would be, and the license plate was “close enough” to the partial description she provided. Importantly, however, Harris did not commit any traffic violations (damn those pesky drunk drivers not providing any bases for a pretextual stop!), so when he pulled over to the side of the road, the cop followed suit and initiated a traffic stop. It is not clear why he pulled over (probably because he was drunk and saw a cop following him) or what the cop initiated a stop for (probably because he was a cop and he could). Anyway, Harris reeked and was arrested.
Not so fast, said the Virginia Supreme Court, relying on Florida v. J.L. SCOTUS, in its wisdom, determined less than a decade ago that anonymous tips, by themselves are worth diddly-squat:
An anonymous tip has a relatively low degree of reliability, requiring more information to sufficiently corroborate the information contained in the tip. See J.L., 529 U.S. at 270. “Unlike a tip from a known informant whose reputation can be assessed and who can be held responsible if her allegations turn out to be fabricated, ‘an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity.’ ” J.L., 529 U.S. at 270 (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. at 329) (citation omitted).
The indicia of reliability of an anonymous tip may be bolstered when the tipster provides predictive information, which the police can use to test the tipster’s basis of knowledge and credibility. However, for such predictive information to bolster the tipster’s basis of knowledge or credibility, the information must relate to the alleged criminal activity. Providing information observable or available to anyone is not predictive information and can only “help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster [meant] to accuse.” J.L., 529 U.S. at 272. An anonymous call that provides no predictive information leaves the police without a means to test the tipster’s knowledge or credibility. J.L., 529 U.S. at 271.
And it makes perfect sense. if this were not the case, I could call the police and say I saw Scott walking down the street, carrying an AR-15 and a suitcase full of meth and he told me he was going to go rob some prosecutors. That’d be enough for them to arrest him. Now, I know he’s not actually doing any of those things, but he’d be harassed a bit. Chief Justice Roberts’ response to this, though, is that “drunk driving is different”. Okay, he didn’t actually use that pithy phrase, but that’s essentially what he thinks:
The imminence of the danger posed by drunk drivers exceeds that at issue in other types of cases. In a case like J. L., the police can often observe the subject of a tip and step in before actual harm occurs; with drunk driving, such a wait-and-see approach may prove fatal. Drunk driving is always dangerous, as it is occurring. This Court has in fact recognized that the dangers posed by drunk drivers are unique, frequently upholding anti-drunk-driving policies that might be constitutionally problematic in other, less exigent circumstances.
Riiight. So a cop who is following a driver based on an anonymous tip couldn’t pull him over if the driver was say…driving erratically? No, of course not. That would make too much sense. There’s definitely more harm there than, say, a drug deal gone bad. You know how those cops love to point out to juries that drug dealers are violent types known to carry guns.
I don’t know why he chose to dissent in this case, but one can suspect that perhaps his whole intention isn’t really to distinguish between drunk driving and other offenses, but rather to do away with that pesky J.L. case altogether.
Either way, good thing he was all alone in his dissent. Well, besides that MADD amicus brief, which I won’t link to because this is a respectable, family oriented blog.
The Fourth Amendment takes the red pill
Aug 28th
And down the rabbit hole we go, with United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing (aka the MLB steroid case). The decision brings fourth amendment and technology into version 2.0, otherwise called the digital age by essentially doing away with the plain view exception. This was issued a few days ago, but I’ve held off on posting about it mainly so I can get a sense of what the dense decision is all about. Instead, I just found myself reading the insightful posts and comments at Volokh, so that’s where I’ll direct you as well, after providing Judge Kozinski’s distillation of the holding:
When the government wishes to obtain a warrant to examine a computer hard drive or electronic storage medium in searching for certain incriminating files, or when a search for evidence could result in the seizure of a computer, see, e.g., United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008), magistrate judges must be vigilant in observing the guidance we have set out throughout our opinion, which can be summed up as follows:
1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases. See p. 11876 supra.
2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized personnel or an independent third party. See pp. 11880-81 supra. If the segregation is to be done by government computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant application that the computer personnel will not disclose to the investigators any information other than that which is the target of the warrant.
3. Warrants and subpoenas must disclose the actual risks of destruction of information as well as prior efforts to seize that information in other judicial fora. See pp. 11877-78, 11886-87 supra.
4. The government’s search protocol must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause, and only that information may be examined by the case agents. See pp. 11878, 11880-81 supra.
5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may lawfully possess it, return non-responsive data, keeping the issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and what it has kept. See p. 11881-82 supra.
Here is the entire chain of posts and I’d make sure to read the comments too. And for those of you who didn’t get the title of this post, here’s the video. The 9th Circuit is Morpheus, the Fourth Amendment is Neo and US v. CDT is the red pill. Or something like that.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6qG4yn-Ps[/youtube]
4th Amdmt gets CPR (Arizona v. Gant)
Apr 22nd
In what is overwhelmingly being described as a “rare” or “never thought I’d see it in my lifetime” move, SCOTUS yesterday effectively overruled lower courts’ incorrect interpretations of Belton v. New York in Arizona v. Gant and restricted the ability of police to search vehicles without reservation.
In an delightfully oddly split 5-4 decision, Justice Stevens (penning the majority) wrote that police could no longer search the interior of a car after the suspect had been secured. The rationale given by Courts (perhaps stemming from an inartful explanation in Belton itself) prior to Gant was that officer safety demanded that they be able to search the interior of a car – the so-called “wingspan”, once a lawful arrest had been made.
Stevens’ majority debunked that:
A red Herring, masked by Ma(r)sala
Jan 17th
I’m awfully late to this dance, but as a criminal law blog, I might as well shut down completely if I don’t post about Herring. As you may be aware, this past week SCOTUS held in a 5-4 decision that mere negliglence doesn’t require the suppression of evidence obtained as a result of a 4th Amendment violation.
Some have called it the death of the exclusionary rule (or certainly the death knell) and others don’t think it’s such a big deal.
The underlying premise of this decision can be traced, in part, to the “good faith” exception enunciated in United States v. Leon. In Leon:
The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.
Herring furthers that proposition by holding that mere negligence of a police department does not trigger the exlusionary rule and thus the evidence seized as a result of an arrest made based on a mistake should be admissible.
If you’re not from CT, you can weep now. Those of you in CT don’t have any reason to be particularly concerned about Herring. This is because, in CT, there is no “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule.
So let me take naked pictures of you
Jan 2nd
One of the most common (and infuriating) responses to any indignation about the government’s surveillance and wiretapping programs is: “I’ve got nothing to hide, I don’t care”. A fundamental underpinning of this argument is that a little bit of intrusion protects our national security, so it’s okay.
I see similar arguments from those not of the criminal defense bent in regards to some basic Constiutional protections: “Well, if I’ve done nothing wrong, then why should it matter that the police didn’t have a warrant.” It underlines the notion that the Fourth Amendment is a “technicality”.
Only criminals need the protection of the 4th, because they have done something wrong or have some to hide. If they hadn’t, they wouldn’t be where they are in the first place.
It’s also why many wonder why there needs to be a criminal defense bar at all, or that hiring a lawyer is a sign of guilt.
Appellate Court freshens the air
Dec 4th
Distraction?
Rear view mirror ornaments seem to be a big problem in Windham County, CT. Three months ago I wrote about a Superior Court decision from last December, in which the court found that C.G.S. 14-99f(c) permitted cops to pull drivers over because, well, the cop thought that the air freshener was obstructing the driver’s view. I thought it was a pretty bad decision at the time, and wrong on the law, and today I see that the Appellate Court sees this as an area of potential litigation.
In State v. Cyrus (a different case from the one I blogged about), the Appellate Court upheld the granting of a motion to suppress
I’m jealous of the 4th Amendment
Oct 8th
She seems to keep getting smaller shedding weight, while I can’t drop a pound even after a 4-week starvation diet.
Drive away. I dare you.
Sep 24th
Let’s try a little game. I will give you the opening lines of a recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision [pdf] and you tell me (you can do this silently, sitting at your computer) what the outcome is. Ready?
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the defendant, David Burroughs, was seized within the meaning of article first, §§ 71 and 9,2 of the Connecticut constitution when two uniformed, armed police officers exited their patrol car and approached his vehicle. The state appeals from the Appellate Court’s judgment, claiming that that court improperly reversed the trial court’s determination that the conduct of the officers did not amount to an unconstitutional seizure of the defendant. The state specifically argues that such conduct would not have caused a reasonable person in the defendant’s position to believe that he was not free to leave.
So. Raise your hands if you think the Appellate Court was wrong. Okay. You – the only one with the raised hand, there’s a job waiting for you at the State’s Attorney’s Office of Delusion.
The Court, naturally, finds that the Appellate Court was incorrect and that when two cops approach a stationary car – one from either side – a reasonable individual in that position would feel free to leave.
The car was parked in front of a private residence. At the time the cops got out of their police cruiser and began to approach the vehicle, there was no criminal activity and they had no R & AS. It was only when the approached an open window did they “smell” marijuana and the dance began. So it was essential to determine whether the defendant was “seized” when the cops began to approach his car.
The Court agreed with the State that there was “an insufficient show of authority” before the cops smelled the marijuana to constitute a seizure.
So, in essence, you’re free to go. Try it next time. I dare you.
This argument endorsed by the Court and proposed by the State is also rather troublesome. Consider the knowledgeable defendant who reads the Court’s decision and now knows that he is free to leave when cops approach his car. What is the natural reaction of “a reasonable person”? Drive away. This will lead to several things: cops and prosecutors putting forth the rather (dis)ingenuous argument that the act of driving away was sufficient to create reasonable suspicion and prosecutors relentlessly arguing consciousness of guilt. Of course, we can always argue that the defendant was merely exercising his Constitutional right to drive away, but that and a dollar will get you 50 cents.
Hidden in this reasoning is the disturbing notion of “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got no reason to run”, implying that anyone who drives off when a cop approaches has something to hide. Will that be enough, in future cases, to establish reasonable suspicion?
Officer: “Well, Mr. Prosecutor, when I approached the car, I was just trying to determine if the man needed help. But as soon as I started to approach, he put his car in gear and took off. In my training and experience, only criminals drive away from the police and based on my years in the force, I knew criminal activity was afoot. Why else would he drive away?”
The Court: “I find probable cause”.
The Supreme Court: “Affirmed”.
Someone please try this. I’m not brave enough.
After all that, we have a poll. Imagine you are legally parked by the side of a road. A police cruiser parks behind you and the officer disembarks and starts walking toward your vehicle. At that point, would you feel free to drive away?
[poll id="24"]
recent comments