Cleveland Law Library Weblog

1983 Action for Search of Wrong House Fails

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the police obtained a valid warrant to search a house, but the suspects had moved out three months earlier, unbeknowst to the police.  The current occupants of the house were of a different race than the suspects.  The current occupants were forced to get out of bed naked, and stand there for a few minutes while the police secured the room.  The Ninth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiffs' contstitutional rights were violated.  The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, stating, "When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is not violated." Los Angeles County v. Retelle (May 21, 2007), U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 06–605. 

Post by Sue Altmeyer

Parents With IDEA Claims May Represent their Child in Court

Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist. (May 21, 2007), U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 05–983:  Parents of a disabled child, who claim their child is not receiving a free appropriate public education as guaranteed by the  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, are entitled to represent the child in court proceedings, and need not hire an attorney.  Par. 1(b) of the Court's syllabus states, "These various provisions [of IDEA] accord parents independent, enforceable rights. Parents have enforceable rights at the administrative stage, and it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme to bar them from continuing to assert those rights in federal court at the adjudication stage."  Also see High Court Backs Family of Autistic Boy by Elizabeth Auster, The Plain Dealer,May 22, 2007. 

by Sue Altmeyer

Bad Faith Debtors Not Entitled to Conversion to Chapter 13

Per Lawyer's Weekly USA, Feb. 22, 2007: "A Chapter 7 debtor does not have an absolute right to convert to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing where the debtor engaged in "bad faith" conduct, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled."  The case is Marrama v. Citizen's Bank of Mass. (Feb. 21, 2007), U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 05-996.  Also see:High Court Says Concealment of Assets Can Take Away Important Right in Bankruptcy by Pete Yost, Associated Press, Law.com, Feb. 22, 2007.

No Punitives Based on Injury to Nonparties, US Supremes Decide

In Philip Morris USA v. Williams (Feb. 20, 2007), Case No. 05-1256 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the damages awarded to a smoker's widow in her lawsuit against cigarette maker Philip Morris.  The compensatory damages in the case were $600,000 and the punitive damages were 97 times the compensatory, ie. $79.5 million.  The Supreme Court did not hold that the amount of punitive damages was unconstitutionally large, but reversed because jurors were urged to punish the defendants for injury to all the smokers in the state.  Punishing a defendant for injury to those not before the court amounted to taking of property without due process.  Supreme Court Tosses Award in Smoking Case by Mark Sherman, Associated Press, The Plain Dealer, Feb. 21, 2007; Supreme Court Limits Punitive Awards, Backs Altria by Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News, Feb. 20, 2007; Court Limits Punitive Damages by Lyle Deniston, SCOTUS Blog, Feb. 20, 2007. 

State Drug Possession Felony that is Federal Misdemeanor Not an "Aggravated Felony" Under Immigration Law

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a drug possession offense that was a felony under state law, but not a felony under federal law, did not constitute an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes.    A drug offense must either be a felony under federal law or constitute drug trafficking in order to be an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes.   An aggravated felony conviction eliminates the possibility of a discretionary cancellation of removal by the Attorney General.  Lopez v. Gonzales, 05-7664.    Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Immigrant on Deportation Issue by Pete Yost, Associated Press, Law.com, Dec. 6, 2006.  For more discussion, see: Lopez: the Supreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit law on possession as an aggravated felony , Ninth Circuit Blog, Dec. 5, 2006. 

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Parents Can Represent Child

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether the parents of an autistic child can represent him in a lawsuit over his school accommodations.  The case is entitled Winkelman v. Parma City School District,  U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 05-983. click to view docket.  The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the parents were not entitled to represent their child and had to hire a lawyer.  Winkelman v. Parma City School District, Case No. 04-4159, Sept. 20, 2005.

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Statute of Limitations for Pay Discrimination Claims

This post comes courtesy of Jack Sargent:

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. No. 05-1074, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether employees must file actions for discriminatory pay under Title 7 within 180 days of when the discriminatory pay starts or 180 days from the last discriminatory paycheck.  For a succint yet comprehensive discussion of the issues in this case, read Supreme Court Preview: Employment Discrimination and Timeliness of Lawsuits by Catherine Fisk, Professor of Law, Duke University, American Constitution Society Blog, Sept. 27, 2006.  For more information and a copy of the brief in opposition to cert., see On the Docket.

U.S. Supreme Court Provides Immediate Access to Oral Argument Transcripts

The U.S. Supreme Court now has oral argument transcripts available on the day of the hearing, instead of a two week wait.  To read oral argument transcripts, go to: Supreme Court of the United States, click on "Oral Arguments" then click on "Argument Transcripts".  Transcripts dating back to the 2000 term can be accessed. Source: Same Day Supreme Court Transcripts by Matt Steinke, Moritz Legal Information Blog, Sept. 18, 2006.   

Blakely Violation Not "Structural" Error

The failure to submit a sentencing factor determination to the jury, in violation of Blakely, is subject to harmless error analysis. Automatic reversal is not required.  Washington v. Recuenco, No. 05-83 (U.S. Supreme Court June 26, 2006). 

Suppression not Required for Violation of Knock and Announce

The U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence obtained when police violated the Fourth Amendment's "knock and annouce rule" did not have to be excluded.  The police had a warrant to search the home.  They announced their presence, and then waited only 3-5 seconds before entering.  Previous Supreme Court precedents indicated the police should wait at least 15 to 20 seconds.  According to the majority opinion, the police would have discovered the evidence anyway, even if they had waited a proper amount of time.   Moreover, the purpose of the knock and announce rule is to prevent physical injury to persons and property and protect the dignity of persons.   The rule does not protect one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant.   A citizen may bring a civil suit for damages resulting from violation of the knock and annouce rule.  Four justices dissented.  Hudson v. Michigan , No. 04-1360 (U.S. Supreme Court June 15, 2006).  For comment, see: Hudson v. Michigan: Fourth Amendment Vanishing Act , Crime and Federalism Blog, June 16, 2006; Knock, Knock, Washington Post, June 18, 2006.