|
|
|
Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees
U.S. Court News |
2013/06/03 13:51
|
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting.
"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.
But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.
"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.
At least 28 states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court was one of the first to say that it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King's DNA without approval from a judge, saying King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches."
But the high court's decision reverses that ruling and reinstates King's rape conviction, which came after police took his DNA during an unrelated arrest. Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Calif. erred in new lethal injection regs
U.S. Court News |
2013/05/28 11:23
|
Executions in California will remain suspended after a state appeals court ruled that corrections officials made several "substantial" procedural errors when they adopted new lethal injection rules.
The 1st District Court of Appeals said the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation failed to explain, as required by state law, why it was switching from a three-drug injection method to a single drug.
The court's opinion, which affirmed a lower court ruling, also said the agency misled the public by not providing the documents and information it used to reach its decision.
Corrections spokeswoman Deborah Hoffman said in an email that the agency was reviewing the ruling.
"In the meantime, at the governor's direction, CDCR is continuing to develop proposed regulations for a single-drug protocol in order to ensure that California's laws on capital punishment are upheld," Hoffman said.
California has not executed an inmate since 2006, when a federal judge halted the practice, finding that the three-drug mixture amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The state was ordered to redo its capital punishment system.
Since then, California has built a new death chamber at San Quentin State Prison and trained a new team to carry out executions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court bars retrial of Michigan arson suspect
U.S. Court News |
2013/03/04 15:26
|
The Supreme Court has ruled that a Michigan defendant cannot be retried for arson even though his initial acquittal was based on a judge's mistake.
The court voted 8-1 Wednesday in favor of Lamar Evans, who was charged with arson after he was seen running away from a burning vacant house in Detroit with a gasoline can in his hand.
A judge acquitted Evans midway through his trial based on a mistaken interpretation of the law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said for the court that the acquittal is final, even if granted in error. Justice Samuel Alito dissented |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma considers foreign law court ban
U.S. Court News |
2013/02/15 14:48
|
Oklahoma lawmakers are considering banning judges in the state from basing any rulings on foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law.
A Senate panel on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the bill, which has broad support in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The bill would specifically make void and unenforceable any court, arbitration or administrative agency decision that doesn't grant the parties affected by the ruling "the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions."
"This is a way to protect American citizens ... where somebody may try to use any kind of foreign law or religious law to affect the outcome of a trial," said Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, who sponsored the bill. Shortey described it as "American Law for American Courts."
A handful of other states have laws aimed at keeping courts from basing decision on foreign legal codes, including Islamic law. Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that would have specifically prohibited courts from considering Sharia law, but a federal judge blocked its implementation after a Muslim community leader alleged it discriminates against his religion.
Shortey said he didn't know of an instance in Oklahoma where a judge has relied on foreign laws, but he said there have been cases in other states.
That prompted state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, to describe the measure as a "solution that's looking for a problem." Crain was the only member of the Senate committee to vote against the bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
