GPS Monitoring and More: Criminal Law Cases in the Supreme Court’s 2011-12 Term

The United States Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 Term was big. The headline on the civil side of the docket was the Affordable Care Act decision.1 The blockbuster on the criminal side was United States v. Jones,2 the Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring case. In Jones, the Court showed that some old things can be new again—the justices gave us “new” ways of thinking about Fourth Amendment searches. There were other key criminal-law rulings as well, including on effective assistance and plea negotiations, confrontation, juries and criminal fines, juvenile life-without-parole sentences, and double jeopardy. And as in the previous Term, the Court issued several opinions emphasizing the deference to be afforded state courts on federal habeas corpus review. This article examines some of the most notable criminal-law-related opinions of the Supreme Court’s 2011 Term, focusing on those decisions that have the greatest impact upon the states. It concludes with a brief preview of the 2012-2013 Term

In the Stationhouse After \u3cem\u3eDickerson\u3c/em\u3e

Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda\u27s foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct officers that they may continue to interrogate suspects in custody who have asserted their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent or right to counsel. Harris v. New York and Oregon v. Hass permit some statements taken in violation of Miranda to be used for impeachment purposes at trial. Michigan v. Tucker and Oregon v. Elstad permit some derivative use of such statements. These rulings together with other decisions labeling Miranda\u27s procedures as merely prophylactic - have created incentives for police to disregard Miranda and have led to a different way of thinking about its core holding. Proponents of this different view, which I have called the new vision of Miranda, have claimed that Miranda sets forth a nonconstitutional rule of evidence that need only be followed when officers seek a statement to introduce in the prosecution\u27s case-in-chief at trial. By transforming Miranda from an affirmative constitutional command governing conduct in the stationhouse into a weak rule of evidence, the new vision has encouraged officers to continue to question suspects who have asserted the right to counsel or the right to remain silent. During the last decade, the practice has become so pervasive in some jurisdictions that it has acquired its own moniker: questioning outside Miranda. This Article argues that Dickerson firmly rejects the new vision and asks whether the ruling may foster new respect for Miranda and adherence to its commands. The Article explores the Court\u27s reaffirmation of the constitutional basis for Miranda and discusses the efficacy of exclusionary rules and civil rights actions in enforcing Miranda\u27s procedures. Most police officers are not lawyers and do not read advance sheets. Court decisions can influence officers\u27 conduct only if the holdings are accurately transmitted to them. This Article thus examines how law enforcement officials are instructed following Dickerson and other recent Miranda cases, and explores whether officers are likely to follow their training

GPS Monitoring and More: Criminal Law Cases in the Supreme Court’s 2011-12 Term

The United States Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 Term was big. The headline on the civil side of the docket was the Affordable Care Act decision.1 The blockbuster on the criminal side was United States v. Jones,2 the Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring case. In Jones, the Court showed that some old things can be new again—the justices gave us “new” ways of thinking about Fourth Amendment searches. There were other key criminal-law rulings as well, including on effective assistance and plea negotiations, confrontation, juries and criminal fines, juvenile life-without-parole sentences, and double jeopardy. And as in the previous Term, the Court issued several opinions emphasizing the deference to be afforded state courts on federal habeas corpus review. This article examines some of the most notable criminal-law-related opinions of the Supreme Court’s 2011 Term, focusing on those decisions that have the greatest impact upon the states. It concludes with a brief preview of the 2012-2013 Term

One Term, Two Courts: Selected Criminal-Law Cases in the Supreme Court’s 2015-2016 Term

In a way, we had not one but two Supreme Courts last Term.1 The first Court sat from October 5, 2015, to February 12, 2016. The Term of the successor Court began on February 13, 2016, when Associate Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly passed away on a Texas ranch. We will review important criminal-law decisions from both 2015-2016 Courts. But for those who adjudicate, study, prosecute, or defend criminal cases, the death of Justice Scalia was the most significant aspect of the year. Whether one was a fan of his jurisprudence or not, it is impossible to deny his outsized impact upon the Court for almost three decades. We will begin by noting some of his most influential criminal-law and procedure opinions before turning to the rulings of the 2015-2016 Term

The Calm Before the Storm? Selected Criminal-Law Cases in the Supreme Court’s 2016-2017 Term

Last year’s review was titled One Term, Two Courts, and it noted some of the differences in the Court’s decision making before and after Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing.1 Justice Scalia’s replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, was sworn in on April 10, 2017, too late to have an impact on the criminal side of the 2016-2017 Term’s ledger. He participated in only three of the twenty-two cases we discuss here,2 and none of his votes was decisive. This was one Term, one Court. Two characteristics mark the Term. One is a light criminal law docket (with some significant rulings, but no blockbusters). The other is a relatively high degree of consensus— a high percentage of unanimous opinions—as well as fewer merits cases determined by a single vote than in the five previous Terms with a full Court.3 The October 2017 term may well be different

Motorists, Motels, Mistakes, and More: Criminal Law Cases in the Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 Term

Despite its relatively modest size, last Term’s Supreme Court criminal docket packed a punch. The Court decided search-and-seizure issues important to day-today policing, it returned to the Crawford v. Washington line of cases, and several justices opined on the constitutionality of solitary confinement and the death penalty. This article reviews these and other criminal decisions with an eye toward issues most relevant to state courts. It closes with a brief glance toward the 2015 Term. FOURTH AMENDMENT Traffic stops and administrative searches were the focus of this Term’s Fourth Amendment cases. The Court issued important rulings on “add-ons” to legitimate police stops, the reasonableness of searches and seizures made pursuant to an officer’s mistake of law, and the constitutionality of city ordinances permitting the police to inspect hotel registries without prior permission from a judge