This case focuses on whether the police can take a DNA sample from a person who has been arrested, but not convicted, for a crime.  The answer turns out to be yes.  So long as a person is arrested under reasonable suspicion and brought to the police station the police have the right to take a DNA sample.  This may be good for some people; those who didn’t commit a crime have been able to give a voluntary sample, but the police like this ruling.  The problem is that sometimes the DNA may match to a case that has gone cold.   In this case Alonzo Jay King was arrested on an assault charge, and the police connected him to a rape from six years earlier.  The DNA was the only evidence against him.

The rationale behind the decision is the same as the rationale surrounding fingerprints.  The police are working to identify the man they have arrested as well as to see what they have done in the past, as that is a critical factor in how the police will proceed.  There are several caveats.  The DNA can only be used to help identify the person.  It can not be used to look at the clinical history or search for any genetic issues.   Kennedy also said that the DNA testing can only be done for serious crimes, though he did not say what that entails.

This ruling will help the police make more arrests because they can now get DNA from the people they arrest.  The dissent argue that this testing is an unreasonable invasion of privacy and that similar effects on the efficacy of law enforcement can be achieved by swabbing the DNA of all people who attend public schools.

I think this may be too much of an expansion of police power.  I find it frankly kind of scary.

Scalia is, as usual, the funniest when he said “I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

What do you think?

This is interesting to anyone who likes issues of search and seizure.  When a person is arrested can the police search through their cell phone to look at their call log without getting a warrant.  Mr. Wurie was arrested legally for cocaine dealing.  The police looked at his phone realizing that he had received multiple calls a number labeled my house and that the wall paper was that of a black woman.  The police found the house number in the phone and used this to find the corresponding house.  They found more cocaine and a gun inside after receiving a warrant to search the house.  Wurie appealed on the grounds that the police had no right to search his cell phone and that all of the evidence that came from that search must be thrown out.

There are two precedents that have to be looked a in this case.  The Robinson precedent which states that the police, upon making a valid arrest can search the person entirely.  This precedent was not in the context of cell phones and it needs to be established whether the cell phone on a person can be searched as part of the fully justified search of the person.  The other problem is the Chimel rule, which states that the police can search both the person and the area of the person’s immediate control.  Again, there is question as to whether or not this applies to a person’s cell phone.

The Circuit Court found that the evidence should be thrown out because the Chimel rule did not apply to the cell phone. The Chimel rule’s intent was to prevent the quick disposal of evidence just before the arrest and to protect the officers by searching for weapons.  They found that the chance of removing any evidence from a cellphone is unlikely , though this is the main point of the one Judge who disagreed, and thus does not fall under the Chimel rule.  The dissenting judge disagreed stating that the risk of destruction of evidence is higher on a cell phone because there is even a possibility for remote destruction of the evidence.  The circuit court also stated that the only reason the police should be able to look at the cellphone is to determine that it is not a weapon; any further investigation requires a warrant.  The Supreme Court has granted a Writ of Cert but has only received briefs so far.

I don’t think the police should be able to look through my cell phone without a warrant .  What do you think?

This is a different type of case than what I talked about in the past.  This case deals with international childhood abduction.  Yes I know, it seems obvious.  The child should be returned overseas to his parents, but the abductor is one of the child’s parents.  So, what do you do now.

There is actually a treaty that deals with this problem.  The treaty says that the parent from whom the child was taken can file a lawsuit for an automatic return of the child within a one year period.  What makes this case special is that the mother took her daughter from the UK and hid her in the US until the one year period was finished.  The father found his daughter after the period and filed for the automatic return of his daughter.

The Supreme Court decided that they had no choice but to reject the lawsuit because the one yea period was up.  They didn’t like doing so, because the father now has very little possibility of getting his daughter back, the courts will now have to focus on whether the child is settled into her new home.  After more than a year, she probably is.  The other reason the supreme court doesn’t like the decision they were forced to make unanimously is that there is now a precedent that hiding your children from their other parent in another country will let you keep your children from their parent.  They are essentially encouraging people to hide children from their spouses.

The Supreme Court was forced into this. though.  The case didn’t revolve around a statute.  It revolved around a treaty.  The Supreme Court can’t change the meaning of the language of the treaty.  How do you feel about this? Is it wrong?  Is it fair, or should the treaty be changed?

On December 6, 2006 the DEA began conducting surveillance on Joelis Jardine’s house after having received a tip that he may be growing pot inside.  They brought a drud sniffing dog, Franky, up to his porch using the walkway where Franky detected and signaled marijuana.

Jardines was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.  He moved to have the evidence suppressed on the grounds that the dog sniffing around his porch was an unreasonable search.  The trial court did suppress the evidence saying that it was an illegal search under the fourth amendment and violated Jardines’s right to privacy.  The state appealed and that decision was reversed saying that it was not a search because a person has no right to contraband or any privacy surrounding it.  This was again appealed to the Florida Supreme Court who ruled that the dog sniff violated the sanctity of the home and was thus a search under the Fourth Amendment.  The state filed a petition for cert with the Supreme Court.

Scotus does a very god job at describing all of the opinions.  The majority opinion stated that the policemen had a right to approach the front door reasonably, however there was no right to bring a dog to search for drugs.  Scalia wrote this opinion.  Kagan wrote a concurring opinion saying that the policemen violated he rights to privacy.  The desent claimed that there was no real difference between an officer aproaching the door with or without a dog.

I agree with the dissent.  I was always taught that a police dog was just the same as a police man except harrier and more specialized.  I think that the dog does not constitute a search under the fourth amendment and thus is completely valid.  I want to hear what other people think.

This may not be the main topic for this blog, but I think the Nobel committee is doing this wrong.  Edward Snowden has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.  I can’t think of a good way to justify this decision.  I recognize that he has began an international discussion on the  use of surveillance.  That being said, I don’t think he has done anything to create more peace in the world.  I believe that the Nobel Peace Prize should always go to somebody who has actually stopped war or fighting and increased the amount of peace in the world.  Edward Snowden has not done this by revealing the extensive program that has been monitoring phone calls in the United States.

The United States has been engaged in several wars over the last several years.  Edward Snowden has not been able to stop any of them, and I don’t think he has prevented another war from breaking out.  So, what has he done to earn a PEACE prize.

None of this has anything to do with whether he is a hero or a villain. It may be a good thing to discuss and has been often,  Is Snowden a hero or a villain?  I can’t really say either way.  I think that he has committed treason as it is written in the Constitution.  He is also probably protected under the laws protecting whistle-blowers.  I don’t really think that the legal part is really able to describe whether he is the good guy or not.  I have to look at his actions.  It is impossible to argue that Edward Snowden did not break an oath to the federal government by revealing the information he did.  He thought he was helping the American people by doing so, which is a mitigating  factor.  I just can’t see any concrete results. Obama has said that it was a rogue agency and that the NSA will not track so much information, but there is no way for the American public to know if that is true.  Because of the timing, there will probably be no change in the regime because of his actions, so I can’t find one major result of his actions.  I think that Edward Snowden is an idealist who has not accomplished anything but start a conversation and does not tdeserve a peace prize.

I am feeling lazy tonight, but I have been researching the court case of Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, so I will write about that.  The case was an on face challenge of the formula put forth in Section 4 (S.4) the Voting Rights Act (hereafter VRA) which determines what areas are subject to government preclearance found in S.5.

The argument made by the appellant (Shelby County) was that the formula was based on Data nearly fifty years old and was not as necessary as it had been 45 years ago.

The court ended up ruling in favor of the appellant, making the crown jewel of the VRA null and void.  The reasoning was that there was no longer such a terrible issue of racism in the states which were covered by this formula.  The court essentially decided that the extraordinary problem which had granted the federal government the extraordinary power to abridge certain state’s freedom to regulate voting was no longer accurately represented by the formula put forth.  The other piece they sited is that there is a procedure put forth in S.2 of the VRA which enables people and the government to file law suits to correct discriminatory voting practices.  The Justices who voted this way are Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas

The respondent ( the state) argued that the formula was still relevant, that congress was the one imbued with the power to determine when the problem of racism and discrimination has been solved, and that the problem had not been solved.

Since the decision was published this year several of the states which had been covered have started to change their voting laws.  The effects of the case have not been observed as of yet.  The problem with S.2 lawsuits is that they often occur after the fact and take time and money to file.

The problem of the case is more or less focused around the questions of how bad racism is in the states and how important are the states’ right to equal sovereignty with other states.  I am not from the South and have never lived in a covered jurisdiction.  I personally feel that the court was correct in their understanding and decision.  I do not in any way feel that there is no racism or that the decision will have no negative impact on the rights of certain individuals.  I simply feel that the country has reached a point where they need to reevaluate the formula that was valid 45 years ago to see if it remains valid.  For example, many of you are probably aware of the numerous attempts to change voting laws in places like Ohio (These attempted changes occurred mostly in swing states during the Presidential election).  If Alabama had suggested to the Federal government that they could pass a law forcing people to present picture ID to vote, they would have been rejected out of hand.  Is it fair to force Alabama to check with the federal government but not Ohio anymore?  I think the decision is reasonable though the effects will probably be bad until congress makes a new formula.

What are your thoughts on my opinion or the decision made by the court?

As some people may have noticed an unprecedented amount of money was spent to get either President Obama or Mitt Romney elected in this past election cycle.  in the state of Ohio, one of the most important states in the Presidential campaign, you could not turn the television on without getting bombarded by television ads for both candidates.  It was slightly appalling.  The reason that this money could be spent originates with several key Senators trying to reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns by passing some new legislation.  Before this story can proceed there are things necessary to understand about campaign financing.  There are funds that are given directly to the candidates which are rather strictly limited.  A person can only give a certain amount of money to any candidate.  Prior to these Senators trying to reduce the  amount of money spent in Campaigns people could only invest a few thousand dollars per year.  The other form of campaign contributions is indirect contributions.  This is when a person or group just makes a commercial separately from a candidate and funds it to go on air.

Now back to the Senators.  The first thing they did was increase the amount of money that could be given to a campaign directly.  This may seem like a bad way to reduce campaign spending, but they closed several loop holes and forbade for non candidates to make commercials for candidates in the last six months before an election.  This is where the Citizens United case originates from.  They argued successfully that this was a first Amendment violation of the freedom of speech clause.  The Supreme court ruled in a way that can be expressed in two ways.  Money is political speech and corporations are people with the same rights to speech.

The end result is that people can spend unlimited amounts of money on people’s campaigns.  There is a new type of organization known as a super PAC which has the unreasonable ability to do this so long as the person funding this advertising is not directly related to the people running the campaign.  People are buying candidates and parties through these contributions and organizations like the NRA can stop a vote that 98% of people want to happen.  My view, in short, is that by working to protect our rights, the Supreme Court has removed to a large extent the people’s right to having a somewhat fair election process, and we have sold our rights to democracy to the highest bidder.

Your Thoughts?

I believe I have concluded my introduction to the Court.  I have explained the process and method.  I have highlighted and examined the key players.  I have explained the purpose.  Having given the who, how, where, what, and why, I feel the only logical step to take is the so what.  I will begin to speak on the specific cases of the Court in recent history and possibly a few that are much further back.  I am considering starting with the Citizens United case, which has been pointed to as a possible reason for the current government shutdown as it is now possible for corporations to easily buy votes in congress, though I have a personal preference for McCullough v Maryland which established the Bank of the United States’s right to exist.

I leave the question out to any readers.  Do you want to analyze and discuss Citizens United v FEC, an older case like McCullough v. Maryland, or any other case you find interesting?  I am happy to discuss any case that deals with social or rights based issues, though I doubt that anyone wants to hear about cases involving the requirements for a group of people to be considered a class in a class action law suit.  I don’t particularly want to discuss that either.

I will go based on seniority.

Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative Justice.  He was nominated to the Supreme court by George W. Bush.  He has been on the court for less than a decade, but because of his rank as Chief Justice he is considered the most senior.  He is a white man.  He will usually take the conservative stance on most issues, but he was the deciding vote on the ObamaCare act.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia is known as the most conservative Justice in the Court.  He is also one of the most fun to listen to.  He asks a lot of questions during the oral arguments.  He will almost always vote in favor of the conservative side of the issue.  He has served on the Court for 27 years  He is also a white male and was nominated by President Reagan.

Anthony Kennedy is my personal favorite.  He was brought onto the Court by President Reagan 25 years ago.  He was expected to be a conservative Justice, but he has been the swing vote in most cases during his tenure.  He is a white male.  Most people try to make their cases appeal to Justice Kennedy when they make them.

Clarence Thomas is the second black man to ever serve on the court.  The first was Thurgood Marshall.  Unlike the majority of African Americans Clarence Thomas is  a very Conservative man.  He has been known to make decisions that don’t necessarily help his race, like in the Shelby Alabama case where he sided against the voting rights act.  He was brought on 22 years ago under George H. W.  Bush

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a white, female, liberal, Justice.  She was brought on by Clinton 20 years ago.  She will almost always side with the liberals.  She is the oldest person on the Court and currently seems to be considering retirement in 2016, assuming presumably, that the Democrats maintain control of the Senate and White House.

Justice Breyer is a white man who has served on the court for 19 years after a nomination by Clinton.  He is a more moderate liberal Justice, but he sticks close to the lines.  It was a surprise when he voted against the Voting Rights Act I the Shelby County case.

Samuel Alito is another White male.  He is a very conservative Justice.  He wsa nominated by George W. Bush and has served on the Supreme Court for 7 years.  He rarely strays across party lines.

Sonia Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Justice to serve on the Supreme Court.  She has served for three years, having ben nominated by Obama and is a very liberal Justice.  I like her, not because of her views, but because she grew up in the lower working class and her father died when she was nine.  She is now sitting on the bench.  That is an impressive woman.

Justice Kagan is the least senior of the nine Justices having only been serving for two years.  She was nominated by Obama and is very liberal.

Abner you made a good question last week about the way votes always seem to be placed.  Many controversial decisions are decided by 5-4 decisions.  Unfortunately, whether this is good or bad is an opinion I have never bothered to focus on.  My family raised me to revere the courts and that though they are fallible they are never wrong.  The court system is the way it is.  That is all I have ever thought of this way of the court’s business.  A few moments of meditation has brought the following thoughts to my mind.  There is very little problem in my mind about controversial problems divided mostly in half.  What I dislike is that the votes are very easy to predict.  Scalia will always take the same position as the republican party.  Kagan, Sottomayor, and Ginsburg will invariably side with the minority group or the women.  Justice Thomas will side with the Republican party most of the time, even when the ruling won’t increase his race’s standing in the world.  Both Roberts and Breyer have been shown to occasionally vote against their party’s lines.  Roberts did this when he supported Obama Care, and Breyer did this when he attacked the Voting Rights act.  Alito usually takes the conservative side of a case.  The only person who ever seems to make any difference is Anthony Kennedey.  I personally rank Justice Kennedey at about the 6th most powerful man directly involve din our political system.   I realize that there is nothing that can be done about it at this point.  My personal ideal court would be made up of five people like Anthony Kennedey who, I believe, is one of the best readers of the Constitution on the Court.  I would then have a Roberts and a Breyer.  Then I would keep a person like Scalia and a person like Sottomayor.  I would have two Justices I consider to be more extreme because they represent an important demographic of the country.

As to the part of people not caring about the losing side of a case, I hold that to be highly untrue.  The dissenting opinions are written so that people can overturn the Court’s decision.  The difference in people looking at it is only who is paying attention.    Lawyers will use the arguments presented in the dissenting opinions to try and firm up the walls of the laws that have just become more not less unstable by the most recent decision.

The system is not perfect because it is based on people, who are inherently unreliable.  In an adversarial system, there can only be one winner.  There is no search for truth.  The only important thing is who is more right.  In this case right means believable.  There is no good system.  I know people who would suggest that the inquisitorial system of which an example can be found in France is more effective.  I don’t particularly care if it would be more effective because this system is pretty effective.  You can see many policies being reversed by the Court overtime.  “Separate but equal” used to be the law but now there is an “Inherent Unfairness.”  Plus, even if this is an ineffective system there is one point I will never budge on in favor of another system.  It is more fun.

Next week I will talk in depth about the Justices.  I just felt I needed an interlude to show how I actually think of these things and be completely subjective.  Thank you for the excuse Abner.