Supreme Court Wrap-Up

Two criminal cases were handed down by the US Supreme Court today. NELSON v. CAMPBELL unanimously allowed a particular procedural method, even if it touches upon how a particular execution is carried forth. The vote suggests the narrowness of the ruling, involving a particularly gruesome method (allegedly unnecessary) to obtain an accessible vein to perform a lethal injection (in this case, long term drug use made the procedure difficult to carried out).

All the same, it is a minor victory (the Rehnquist Court has for a long time seriously reduced the avenues of appellate review in capital cases), and points out the inherently unsavory nature of the punishment, even when the most "humane" method is used. As Reversible Errors suggests, the defendants are often left to rely on such nuances of the appellate process. [On the other hand, final appeals in that movie took place seven years after the trial. The defendant here was convicted in 1977. I'm unclear the point of killing him now, but I guess that's not the issue.]

THORNTON v. US basically furthered the convoluted nature of current Fourth Amendment law. The case broadened an exception that allowed unwarranted searches of automobiles in order to protect police safety and possible destruction of evidence. This time, the defendant was in custody in the back of a police car, so the basis of such concerns were extremely weakened. Justice Scalia's concurrence (joined by Justice Ginsburg, while Justice O'Connor concurred separately to suggest it might be the way to go) noted but seven examples were supplied by the federal government to back up the proposed government safety interest. None were on point (three involved weapons on the defendant's person, three weapons seized from the police, and one in a nearby house).

This led Scalia to suggest the only logical reason to support the plurality's (with O'Connor, the ruling was in effect [4-1-2] - 2) expansion of precedent was to base it on pure evidence collection grounds. He did note that original intent and precedent as a whole can be read for and against such a reasoning. Given his jurisprudence, therefore, logically Justice Scalia might be willing to re-examine the precedents to clarify things. And, surprising as it might seem, some of his past opinions suggests he might support a more privacy geared rule, as long as it was clearly stated. If we toss in the two dissenters (Justice Stevens, joined with Souter), maybe Justice Thomas (Scalia's usual partner in crime), and Justice Breyer (probably game) who knows what will happen.

Justice Stevens in dissent noted that he was willing in the past to join a debatable weakening of privacy to formulate a clear rule as to automobile searches. Fourth Amendment rules are notoriously convoluted, resulting in both honest and dishonest breaches by the officers on the street as well as lower court judges. So, clarity is an important value. All the same, clarity was not really provided here, given a full majority really didn't accept the rule set forth today. Furthermore, clarity or no, basic principles must be followed. Fourth Amendment privacy applies to automobiles. The defendant was away from the vehicle, so the reasons for the exceptions didn't apply. If arrest allows broad search power just to investigate, what's the stopping point?

The rulings are discussed and can be accessed here (5/24)Update: I inputed case names now that .html links are available).