The Eighteenth Annual Supreme Court Review Conference

October 4, 2013

Professor Bridgette Baldwin

Western New England University School of Law

Dogs, DNA and Detainees: The Shifting Politics of Privacy under Today's Supreme Court



Cases Discussed
  1. Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013) (When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold a suspect for a serious offense and bring him to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.)

  2. Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013)(When, subject to challenge by the defendant, the police provide evidence of a drug-sniffing dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training program, the dog’s alert can provide probable cause to search a vehicle.)

  3. Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013)(A dog sniff at the front door of a house where the police suspected drugs were being grown constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.)

  4. Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013)(The rule in Michigan v. Summers that officers executing a search warrant are permitted “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted” is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched and does not apply when a recent occupant of the premises was detained at a point beyond any reasonable understanding of the immediate vicinity of the premises in question.)
Additional Cases
  1. Ryan v. Gonzales and Tibbals v. Carter, 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013)(18 U.S.C. § 3599 does not provide a state prisoner with the right to suspend his federal habeas proceedings when he is adjudged incompetent.)

  2. Smith v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 714 (2013)(A defendant bears the burden of proving a defense of withdrawal from conspiracy.)

  3. Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013)(The Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform criminal defendants of the deportation risks of guilty pleas, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.)

  4. Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013)(For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant’s claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.)

  5. Evans v. Michigan, 133 S. Ct. 1069 (2013)(The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial following a court-directed acquittal, even if the acquittal was erroneous.)

  6. Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (2013)(Regardless whether a legal question was settled or unsettled at the time of trial, an error is “plain” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) so long as the error was plain at the time of appellate review.)

  7. Marshall v. Rogers, 133 S. Ct. 1446 (2013)(The Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief, the Ninth Circuit’s holding that respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated was not supported by clearly established federal law; the courts of appeals may not rely on circuit precedent to refine or sharpen a general principle of Supreme Court jurisprudence into a specific legal rule that the Court has not announced.)

  8. Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013)(If a noncitizen’s conviction for a marijuana distribution offense fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana, it is not an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act.)

  9. Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013)(In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.)

  10. Metrish v. Lancaster, 133 S. Ct. 1781 (2013)(Because the Michigan Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it retroactively applied a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court rejecting the diminished-capacity defense to petitioner, who was charged with a murder that occurred several years before the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief.)

  11. Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013)(When, as here, a state’s procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise on direct appeal a claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, the good cause exception recognized in Martinez v. Ryan applies.)

  12. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013)(Actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the impediment to consideration of the merits of a constitutional claim is a procedural bar, as it was in Schlup v. Delo and House v. Bell or expiration of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act statute of limitations, as in this case.)

  13. Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013)(The Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits federal courts from sentencing a defendant based on guidelines that were promulgated after he committed his crimes, when the new version of guidelines provides a higher sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense.)

  14. United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013)(When a federal judge participates in plea negotiations, contrary to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c),the defendant's guilty plea does not need to be vacated if there is no evidence in the record of prejudice to the defendant’s decision to plead guilty.)

  15. Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013)(Sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach to a federal defendant when the crime of which the defendant was previously convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements.)

  16. Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)( Because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an “element” of the crime that must be submitted to the jury.)

  17. United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496 (2013)(As applied to respondent Anthony Kebodeaux, the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act fall within the scope of Congress’s authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.)

  18. Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013)(When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.)

  19. Sekhar v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2720 (2013)(Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute “the obtaining of property from another” under the Hobbs Act.)

  20. Nevada v. Jackson, 133 S. Ct. 1990 (2013)(In his trial for rape, Jackson sought to present evidence to show that the victim had previously reported that he had assaulted her. The state supreme court held that the evidence was properly excluded, but in his federal habeas proceedings the Ninth Circuit ordered the state to either retry or release Jackson, on the ground that the exclusion of the evidence violated Jackson’s constitutional right to present a defense, and that the state supreme court’s contrary decision was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state supreme court’s application of the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedents was in fact reasonable when no prior decision by the Supreme Court clearly established that the exclusion of the evidence violated Jackson’s constitutional right.)


Sponsored by the Law School's Institute for Legislative and Governmental Affairs


Return to Supreme Court Conference 2013 Table of Contents