Posts Tagged ‘Fourth Amendment’

“We Were Wrong about Stop-and-Frisk”

“I and others argued that crime would rise [in NYC]. Instead, it fell. We were wrong.” [Kyle Smith, National Review]

Of course, to the extent that stop-and-frisk police practices violate the U.S. Constitution — as they often do — NR should have known better than to support them even if they showed some results. Aside from that, though, it’s good to be open to changing one’s mind based on evidence.

Supreme Court roundup

Mostly Cato links:

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup

Update: Louisiana sheriff’s raid on blogger’s home

We reported last year on how the sheriff of Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, relying on the state’s old and constitutionally infirm criminal-libel law, had raided the house and seized the computers of a local man suspected of being responsible for a gadfly blog that had criticized the sheriff and other community figures. Now, unsurprisingly, a federal judge is allowing a lawsuit to go forward seeking damages for the search: “Some qualified immunity cases are hard. This case is not one of them.” [Eugene Volokh]

Tenth Circuit rules on hydroponic tomato raid

A hydroponic-tomato setup and the finding of soggy tea leaves in discarded trash led heavily armed cops to stage an early morning surprise raid on a Kansas family’s home, part of a police venture called Operation Constant Gardener. As noted earlier, my colleagues at the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief urging the Tenth Circuit to uphold the family’s rights by applying “the knock-and-announce rule… an ancient one rooted in the English common law dating back to the early 17th century.”

This week a Tenth Circuit panel reinstated many of the claims in the family’s lawsuit. Kyle Swenson, Washington Post:

…this week a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that the family could move forward in court. The decision has larger implications for Fourth Amendment litigation and legislation targeting badly behaving police officers.

The scorching judicial pronouncement blasted authorities for laziness and possible fabrication, the kind of overzealous police work that’s become a sometimes deadly facet of the drug war….

“The defendants in this case caused an unjustified governmental intrusion into the Hartes’ home based on nothing more than junk science, an incompetent investigation, and a publicity stunt,” Judge Carlos Lucero wrote in his opinion. “The Fourth Amendment does not condone this conduct, and neither can I.”…

The appellate win, if not successfully appealed, means the Hartes will be able to press their case in district court.

And this from Ilya Shapiro on the new Tenth Circuit decision:

Even if the court didn’t fully address the issues Cato raised in our brief, the ruling in Harte v. Board of Commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas is a step forward….

The Tenth Circuit mostly agreed with Cato on the Fourth Amendment issue. Two judges on the three-judge panel found that the district court had been wrong to grant summary judgment to the police on the search and seizure issue, with Judge Carlos Lucero alluding briefly to the knock-and-announce requirement. It was a convoluted opinion that took a long time to produce because of each judge writing separately and different sets of judges coming together on different parts of the ruling. Most importantly, Judge Gregory Phillips, joined by Judge Lucero, found that “what the deputies learned early on in the search dissipated any probable cause to continue searching.”

Ultimately, the judges only discussed in passing the police-militarization and general-warrant concerns raised by Cato and sided with the police on the excessive-force claims. Nevertheless, the court held that what the Hartes experienced qualified as unreasonable search and seizure – and also let them continue with their state-law claims – so Harte v. Board of Commissioners represents a positive development in the jurisprudence surrounding dynamic police raids.

Privacy a casualty in war on opioids

Law enforcement officials in some states are seeking warrantless access to prescription databases. A New Jersey bill “would require officials to ‘certify’ that they are engaged in a specific investigation,” seeking to calm fears that enforcers will begin trawling data for people to investigate. Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo has already signed a similar bill. “In California, the Supreme Court ruled recently that the state Medical Board can dig through prescription drug records without a warrant or subpoena.” [Associated Press via Scott Shackford, Reason]

Schools roundup

  • Georgia sheriff mass-frisks 900 students at a high school. Is that legal? [Scott Greenfield, Lowering the Bar]
  • Federal judge dismisses “clock boy” discrimination suit against Dallas-area school district [CBS News]
  • Ilya Shapiro on Gloucester County v. G.G., the transgender school bathroom Title IX case [Federalist Society]
  • Social worker on public reaction against Named Person program in Scotland: families “had wanted a single point of contact for parents,” but Scottish government instead created “point of contact about parents” [No2NP campaign, earlier]
  • “In places like New York City, schools have made it more difficult for principals to suspend disruptive or threatening students. The results? Increased violence, drug use, and gang activity, according to the Manhattan Institute’s Max Eden.” [Hans Bader/CEI, Eden paper, related on national policy]
  • Rethink your assumptions about Betsy DeVos’s appointees [Erica L. Green, New York Times] More on appointee Candice Jackson [George Leef, Martin Center, earlier]

Arrive home safely, go to bed, get arrested for DUI

“If Canada’s new impaired driving laws are passed police could show up on your doorstep — up to two hours after you arrive home — to demand a breath or saliva sample.” The proposals would “[drop] the requirement that officers must first have reasonable suspicion before demanding a breath test,” and shift to the accused the burden of proving that the timing of drinking as reflected in a breath test was legally innocent. Critics predicted a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the changes, “which were announced the same day the federal government unveiled its bill to legalize marijuana.” [Bryan Labby, CBC]