Posted Wed Nov 18th 2020 11:57 am by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists.
If the number of cases continues to grow at the current rate, things will quickly become unsustainable. That’s right: Experts are warning that the Supreme Court will re-list 8,388,608 cases per week through June if current trends continue.
The court announced on Friday in last week’s new list, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 20-107, issued a certificate raising the question of whether a California ordinance allowing union organizers to enter the property of producers constitutes an inherently uncompensated takeover of property as the fifth amendment. But alarmingly, the court replaced it with two relists and put it on a course of unsustainable exponential growth.
Caniglia v. Strom, 20-157, deals with an issue that the court has already examined once during this tenure: whether the exception of “community welfare” from the warranty obligation of the fourth amendment extends to the house. Regular readers recall that the court essentially considered this issue in Rodriguez v City of San Jose, California, 19-1057, which it re-listed after the long conference before declining review. The police cannot usually search private property without consent or an arrest warrant. In the Cady v. Dombrowski case, the Supreme Court wrote that the police could conduct searches related to “community caretaking functions” without guarantee, although Cady only dealt with searches related to “vehicle accidents” and the like. It has been used much more broadly since then and is, in the words of the US Circuit Court of Appeals, “a collective term for a variety of tasks that law enforcement officers must perform in addition to their law enforcement activities. ”
In Caniglia police, responding to a domestic dispute, found Edward Caniglia to be “an immediate danger to themselves and others” and went to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. Under the leadership of his wife, police confiscated two firearms from his home, one of which Caniglia had asked his wife to shoot him. Caniglia then sued to question the legality of the unlawful seizure of the firearms (and himself) under the Fourth Amendment, but the District Court and 1st Circuit upheld the search under the “Community Maintenance” exception. Caniglia argues that the exception should not be applied inside the “home – the best protected of all private spaces”.
United States v. Cooley, 19-1414, was born out of a traffic obstruction on a public highway that runs through the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. The policeman who made the stop was a tribal officer from the Crow Tribe. The driver was not a Native American. Although the story of the stop (which revealed methamphetamine and firearms) is convincing to read for many reasons, the main thing I found out is that the suspect said he borrowed the truck from one of two people who are nearly 30 years old Lived miles away, and the arrest officer knew both of them. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the stop was illegal, despite recognizing tribes have the authority to investigate crimes committed by non-tribal members on tribal land. Judge Dan Collins, along with Judges Carlos Bea, Mark Bennett and Dan Bress, objected to the refusal to repeat en banc. The government is seeking a review of whether the lower courts have been suppressed in suppressing evidence to support the theory that a Native American police officer was not empowered to temporarily hold a non-Native American on a public right of way within a conditional reservation a possible violation of state or federal law.
That’s it for now. While things have been easy this week, if current trends continue, I have only three more installments before this is no longer sustainable. Stay safe during these end times.
USA versus Cooley, 19-1414
Problem: Whether the lower courts wrongly suppressed evidence to support the theory that a police officer from an Native American tribe was not authorized to temporarily arrest and search the respondent, Joshua James Cooley, a non-Indian, on a possible violation of a public right of way on a reservation State or federal law.
(resumed after the conference on November 13th)
Caniglia v. Current, 20-157
Problem: Whether the exception of “Community Caretaking” from the warranty obligation of the fourth amendment extends to the home.
(resumed after the conference on November 13th)
Shinn v. Kayer, 19-1302
Problem: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated the deferential standard of 28 USC § 2254 and used a flawed methodology that the Supreme Court repeatedly condemned when it granted habeas relief based on a de novo finding that a violation of the sixth amendment had occurred.
(Performed again after the September 29, October 9, October 16, October 30, November 6, and November 13 conferences; replay requested prior to the October 15 conference and received on October 28)
John Elwood, Relist Watch,
SCOTUSblog (November 18, 2020, 11:57 am), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/relist-watch-163/