Law Watch Archive

POSTED: November 8, 2005

 The following cases of interest to law enforcement are pending in the US Supreme Court. Decisions will be issued before the 2005 term ends on June 30, 2006. Law Watch will report the decisions here. 

Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon  and Bustillo v. Johnson. What is the effect of police violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (must advise foreign nationals of consular rights) on criminal prosecutions? 

Garcetti v. Ceballos. To what extent does a public employee have First Amendment protection for work-related speech occurring on the job, as part of the performance of official duties? 

Hudson v. Michigan. Does the doctrine of "inevitable discovery" permit the admission of evidence seized under search warrant following incomplete compliance with knock-notice?

Samson v. California. Can a parole search be conducted without reasonable suspicion? 

Georgia v. Randolph. Can a wife consent to entry and search of the home over the husband's objections?

Maryland v. Blake. Does a single police question, coming an hour after a Miranda invocation, prevent the custodial suspect from initiating discussions and making an admissible statement 30 minutes later? 

US v. Grubbs. When serving an "anticipatory search warrant," must officers show the occupant a copy of the warrant that lists the "triggering event" for commencement of the search?

Davis v. Washington. Are statements made to 911 operator "testimonial hearsay" under Crawford v. Washington, which placed limits on the evidentiary use of hearsay at trial when the defendant has no opportunity for cross-examination?

Hammon v. Indiana. Are initial statements made to responding officers "testimonial hearsay?" If the victim is asked to write out an affidavit describing an attack, is this "testimonial hearsay?"

Posted: November 4, 2005

Chaker v. Crogan, DJDAR 13061.

Ninth Circuit invalidates PC § 148.6. 

PC § 148.6 makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false complaint of misconduct against a peace officer. This statute was upheld against First Amendment challenge by the unanimous vote of the California Supreme Court in People v. Stanistreet (2002) 29 Cal.4th 497. The Ninth Circuit has now ruled the statute unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment. Because the law does not also apply to false statements that might be made in support of an officer, and does not apply to officers and witnesses who make false statements to IA investigators who investigate the complaint, the 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that § 148.6 impermissibly punishes only a single viewpoint.

Posted: November 1, 2005

The following cases of interest to law enforcement are pending in the US Supreme Court. Decisions will be issued before the 2005 term ends on June 30, 2006. Law Watch will report the decisions here. 

Garcetti v. Ceballos. To what extent does a public employee have First Amendment protection for work-related speech occurring on the job, as part of the performance of official duties? 

Hudson v. Michigan. Does the doctrine of "inevitable discovery" permit the admission of evidence seized under search warrant following incomplete compliance with knock-notice? 

Samson v. California. Can a parole search be conducted without reasonable suspicion? 

Georgia v. Randolph. Can a wife consent to entry and search of the home over the husband's objections? 

Maryland v. Blake. Does a single police question, coming an hour after a Miranda invocation, prevent the custodial suspect from initiating discussions and making an admissible statement 30 minutes later? 

US v. Grubbs. When serving an "anticipatory search warrant," must officers show the occupant a copy of the warrant that lists the "triggering event" for commencement of the search? 

Davis v. Washington. Are statements made to 911 operator "testimonial hearsay" under Crawford v. Washington, which placed limits on the evidentiary use of hearsay at trial when the defendant has no opportunity for cross-examination? 

Hammon v. Indiana. Are initial statements made to responding officers "testimonial hearsay?" If the victim is asked to write out an affidavit describing an attack, is this "testimonial hearsay?"