U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Criminal Law Category

In a detailed 5- 4 opinion, the High Court basically proclaimed the following rule when it comes to law enforcement obtaining an individual's cell phone location data:

Before compelling a wireless carrier to turn over a subscriber's CSLI, the Government's obligation is a familiar one -- get a warrant.

In Carpenter v. U.S., Justice Roberts, for the majority, stressed the fact that individuals have a privacy interest in their cell phone location data, and that absent probable cause and a warrant, or exigent circumstances, it cannot be searched by law enforcement.

The United States Supreme Court chimed in this week to end the circuit split over the interpretation of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The act requires individuals convicted of certain federal offenses to reimburse individuals who participate in the criminal investigation and prosecution for some reasonable costs related to the participation.

However, recently, the Fifth Circuit held that a private lender that spearheaded a $4 million investigation after a company they worked with filed for bankruptcy was entitled to restitution for those costs. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit in a different case had found that these costs were not eligible for restitution under the MVRA. SCOTUS sided with the D.C. Circuit, reversing the Fifth, and putting the circuit split to rest.

In the latest ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, an 8 to 1 majority opinion held that the Fourth Amendment's vehicle exemption did not apply to a motorcycle, stored under a tarp, on the curtilage of an individual's home.

The basic facts are reminiscent of a deceivingly complex bar exam question. An officer suspected an individual was in possession of a stolen motorcycle that was involved in a couple serious traffic incidents. The officer did some Facebook snooping, and found Ryan Collins who had posted photos of the same motorcycle parked in his driveway.

The officer went to Collins' home and saw a tarp at the top of the driveway next to the home. He then walked up the driveway to the tarp, lifted the tarp up, identified the motorcycle was in fact the one he was looking for, replaced the tarp, then went back to his car to wait for Collins to arrive home. When he did, Collins admitted to buying the bike without title, and the officer arrested him.

For four federal criminal defendants in the Southern District of California, the United States Supreme Court just took away a little major victory they had scored on behalf of all federal criminal defendants in that federal district.

In the United States v. Sanchez-Gomez case, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, that the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California's policy to shackle criminal defendants' hands and feet was unconstitutional. And while the Ninth Circuit truly grappled with the merits of the facts and law, SCOTUS saw an opportunity to give the whole case the old moot boot, and the whole Court took it.

Court: Extra-Territorial Wiretaps 'Not Insufficient'

Rejecting arguments to suppress evidence in a drug case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the power of a judge to issue wiretap orders outside a trial court's jurisdiction.

In Dahda v. United States, a Kansas judge issued wiretap orders that were used to intercept communications in Kansas and other states. The justices held unanimously that the wiretap orders were "not insufficient" under a federal wiretap statute.

The Court rejected the defendants' argument that allowing judges extra-territorial jurisdiction produced "bizarre" results.

A unanimous decision was reached in the controversial Byrd v. United States case, reversing the decisions of the appellate and district courts, which held that an officer did not need probable cause or consent to search a rental vehicle when the driver and sole occupant was not listed on the rental agreement.

As the High Court explained, the fact that a driver isn't listed on a rental agreement does not, in and of itself, impact a person's reasonable expectation in privacy. In short, the Court ruled that so long as a driver is legally in possession of the vehicle, Fourth Amendment protections still apply.

Although the majority of the internet world supported Microsoft's efforts to quash the search warrant that sought to obtain data that was stored abroad, by the time the case made it to the Supreme Court, Congress had passed a new law that effectively decided the dispute.

Curiously though, rather than let SCOTUS rule and affirm the warrant based on the newly passed law, a new warrant was issued and Microsoft just gave up, essentially forcing the hand of the Justices to dismiss for mootness, or, more colloquially, give the case the ole moot boot.

Rod Blagojevich may not be the hot news topic that he once was back when he got convicted for trying to sell former President Obama's Illinois senate seat (vacated when he was sworn in as POTUS), as well as his other corruption charges. But the recent rejection of his appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court put the disgraced politician in the headlines, hopefully just one last time before he's released in half a decade.

Blagojevich was appealing to the High Court in hopes of shortening up his 14 year sentence. SCOTUS rejected the appeal, which argued that his status as a "model prisoner" should earn him some time off. However, when you get convicted on 17 out of 20 corruption charges, after a second trial, and your sentence is affirmed a couple times, chances are you don't have a chance with SCOTUS, even if you've been on the Celebrity Apprentice.

The case of Vernon Madison has been headline news since his most recent round of appeals got started back in 2016. Madison, an inmate in his late 60s, contends that he should not be executed because he cannot remember committing the crime that landed him on death row. Now, the Supreme Court is gearing up to hear Madison's case for a second time.

While that novel argument seems to defy all credulity, Madison's failing memory is actually an undisputed fact, and case law establishes that a convict should not be executed unless they can "rationally understand the connection between the crime he committed and the punishment he is to receive." Madison has suffered multiple strokes, and as a result, can't remember who the last president was, let alone the crime he committed over 30 years ago.

The seemingly never-ending justice roller coaster for Brendan Dassey just keeps going and going. After his successful appeal was overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals en banc, a petition was filed with SCOTUS to challenge the circuit's decision.

Recently, it was announced that Dassey's legal team has retained noted litigators who have made several appearances before SCOTUS -- though interestingly, the specific attorneys were neither noted nor named. Dassey's attorney, Steven Drizin, did note though that the High Court has warned that appearing before it without a "seasoned" litigator was akin to malpractice.