Friday, we looked at Florida v. Powell in which the Supreme Court looked at a version of the Miranda warnings that did not clearly state that an arrestee had the right to have an attorney in the room with him/her while being interrogated while in custody.

Today we look at whether the Supreme Court should have considered Powell in the first place. Powell is an appeal from the Florida Supreme Court which ruled the version of the Miranda warnings used by the Tampa police is unconstitutional. The version used by Tampa police states:

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview

The Florida Supreme Court held: “[b]oth Miranda and article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution require that a suspect be clearly informed of the right to have a lawyer present during questioning,” and that the warnings given to Kevin Dewayne Powell did not satisfy either the State or the Federal Constitution.

The question is whether the Florida Supreme Court found “independent state grounds” to reverse Powell’s conviction. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights. For the most part these rights, under the Fourteenth Amendment, are binding upon the states. But nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights limits the states from granting its citizens greater rights than are guaranteed in the Constitution. For example while the Supreme Court may have found the Tampa version of the Miranda warnings sufficient to protect Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination, the Florida Supreme Court has every right to hold the Tampa version of the Miranda Rights insufficient to protect rights granted in the Florida Constitution.

On remand the Florida Supreme Court has every right to say that confessions made after being read the Tampa version of the Miranda inadmissible as a violation of the Florida Constitution. Therefore the Supreme Court as a rule refuses to consider cases where the state court has ruled on the issue and found that it violates the state Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court like any other state court may find that a particular act violates both the state constitution and the Federal Constitution as the Florida Supreme Court did in this case, according to Justice Stevens in his dissent. But since the Supreme Court decision will not have any effect upon Powell if the Florida Supreme Court finds that Powell is protected under the Florida state constitution, the Supreme Court does not take cases where

[t]he state court ‘make[s] clear by a plain statement in its judgment or opinion that the federal cases are being used only for the purpose of guidance, and do not themselves compel the result that the court has reached.’ . . . [T]he real question is whether ‘the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is … clear from the face of the opinion.”

The U. S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, and joined by every justice except Stevens, states that

the Florida Supreme Court treated state and federal law as interchangeable and interwoven; the court at no point expressly asserted that state-law sources gave Powell rights distinct from, or broader than, those delineated in Miranda

But as Justice Stevens points out that the Florida Supreme Court said that the Tampa version of the Miranda rights under neither the United States Constitution or the Florida Constitution provided the arrestee with sufficient notice that he/she could have an attorney present during any interrogation it implicitly stated that there are independent state grounds for excluding the confession under the State Constitution. Therefore the Supreme Court’s decision is no more than an advisory opinion and the Court should not have accepted the case.

This is the type of activism that members of the majority would reject under other circumstances. The Supreme Court, they would argue, should only accept cases where their opinion would mean something and where they were not interfering with the State Courts rulings on state law.

The Third Circuit refused to find incompetence of counsel where trial counsel failed to make a Batson claim. In Batson v. Kentucky the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection mandates that jurors not be selected by race.

James Douglas Clausell was convicted of murder in New Jersey state courts. His trial counsel failed to raise a Batson motion despite the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges on five of the eight African American and Hispanic jurors in the venire.

In Clausell v. Sherrer he appeals the denial of his writ of habeas corpus to
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on the Batson issue as well as on incompetence of counsel grounds for his attorney’s failure to raise the Batson issue in the trial court.

There are three steps to a Batson challenge. First, the defense must raise the issue and make a prima facie case. Second the prosecutor must show that he/she had legitimate not-racial reasons for the use of the peremptory challenge. Finally, the court must decide whether or not there was purposeful discrimination.

The Third Circuit denied the Batson claim. The Court ruled that since Clausell did not make a Batson claim in the trial court he waived the issue on appeal. Therefore he has to rely on his incompetence of counsel claim.

At the time of his trial, New Jersey followed a rule that to show a prima facie case you had to show that there was a “substantial likelihood” that the peremptory was based on race. Later the United States Supreme Court made it clear that Batson mandated that the initial showing only had to be enough to allow the trial judge to draw an inference of discrimination. Yet the majority opinion in Clausell found that there was insufficient evidence to meet the “substantial likelihood” test. Therefore, Clausell’s trial counsel was not incompetent in failing to raise the Batson issue. The concurring opinion by Judge Ambro points out that the majority uses the wrong standard by using the substantial likelihood test instead of the inference test but it claims that Clausell cannot even meet the inference test.

Thus Clausell’s incompetence of counsel claim is denied even though he may have had a legitimate Batson claim. His counsel, not only, did not make the claim but did not preserve a record upon which the appellate court could determine if there was sufficient information for the Batson claim. But it was his attorney’s job to preserve a record allowing for a Batson claim. Is it not incompetence not to investigate the claim?

In United States v. Johnson the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Terry search of Anthony Johnson and affirmed his conviction for possession of a weapon by a convicted felon.

Tammy Anderson a resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania called 911. She told them that she saw a white taxicab pull up next to a van across the street from her residence. She said she saw two men get out of the taxicab and she heard a shot. It was too dark to get a decent description of the men but she saw the cab and it had a green light on top. She told the operator her name and telephone number. She described the lot across the street. She told the operator when the the taxicab left and the direction it was going.

Officer John Doll arrived at the lot across the street from Anderson’s house before Anderson got off the phone with the 911 operator but after the taxicab left. He quickly found the taxicab and developed eye contact. However he waited until other officers arrived to stop the vehicle.

For the safety of the officers they took out their guns and ordered Anthony Johnson and the driver of the taxicab, Kenneth Cobb, out of the taxicab and handcuffed them. A revolver with two spent shells was found in the back seat near where Johnson had been sitting.

In analyzing a Terry stop the courts follow a two step process, First they look at the initial stop and then they look at whether steps following the stop were limited to discovering a weapon.

The court found that Anderson provided sufficient information to allow Officer Doll to stop the taxicab and that the searches were appropriate since Anderson’s claim that she heard a gun shot was credible and the safety of the officers demanded the search.

However, I would like to concentrate for a moment on Kenneth Cobb. Apparently he was not arrested. But he was ordered out of the vehicle, handcuffed and searched. When Officer Doll and his colleagues pulled over the taxicab they had a reasonable suspicion that someone in the vehicle had shot a gun. Both Johnson and Cobb had prison records so it was presumably illegal for either one to be in possession of a gun. But Terry says:

At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized.

Anderson only heard one gun. Officer Doll only had a reasonable suspicion that one of the men was “armed and dangerous.” So it is equally possible that either Johnson or Cobb had the gun. Thus does that give Officer Doll the right to search both men or neither man?

The Supreme Court yesterday reversed the Georgia drug conviction of Eric Presley due to the judge’s refusal to allow Presley’s uncle to be in the courtroom, or even on the same floor of the DeKalb County Courthouse during jury voir dire.

The Sixth Amendment, among other things guarantees “the right to a speedy and public trial.” The trial judge stated that he did not want jurors to be put into a position where they might hear out of court statements related to the case. The Georgia Supreme Court in upholding the trial court said that the trial judge had the power to prevent jurors from hearing potentially prejudicial statements.

But the United States Supreme Court found that the Georgia Supreme Court’s holding could prevent the public from viewing voir dire in all cases and it would invalidate the Sixth Amendment. The Court admitted that there might be some cases in which the public could be prohibited from attending voir dire. But in such cases the court would have to make a specific finding that an overriding interest requires exclusion of the public from voir dire. Also the trial cases must make a finding that there are no alternative methods to prevent the specific damage that would be caused by voir dire being open to the public.

In this case the Georgia court made no attempt to find an alternative method to allow the public to view the voir dire and therefore the court reversed the conviction.

The California Supreme Court ruled that having a deputy escort an in-custody defendant to the witness seat and sit next to him/her while he/she testifies is not a violation of the defendant’ due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

Lorenzo Stevens was charged with attempting to molest his daughter and giving her crack. His daughter lived with her grandmother. According to her testimony at trial, he called her up and asked her to meet him at Taco Bell. They walked to a truck he used as a residence. He gave her a piece of rock cocaine and attempted to get her to copulate him. She escaped and reported the incident to her grandmother and her mother. The police were called. Stevens led the police on a wild escapade by jumping from roof to roof.

According to his testimony his daughter made up the story. He claimed that she made up the story after he asked her if she was sexually active and if she used drugs.

Prior to testifying he was escorted to the witness seat by a sheriff’s deputy who sat beside him during his testimony. No other witness was escorted by a deputy and deputies did not sit beside any other witness.

While certain courtroom security techniques such as shackling the defendant or requiring him/her to wear jail garb while before the jury are “inherently prejudicial” and require a “manifest need” before they can be imposed having a deputy sit next to the defendant while he/she testifies is not an “inherently prejudicial” act requiring a “manifest need” for such a technique. The Court points out that American citizens are accustomed to having security offices in official places and the jury may not pay any attention to it. But as the dissent, by Justice Moreno points out having a uniformed guard sitting next to the defendant when he testifies, like shackling the defendant or having him/her dressed in jail clothes indicates that the defendant must be separated from the community at large.As Justice Moreno pointed out the use of a uniformed deputy sitting next to the defendant as he testifies violates the presumption of innocence.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a finding of summary judgment in favor of the City of Sandown, New Hampshire, its former police chief and a police officer. Ralph Holder and his estranged wife attended their son’s soccer game. During the game it started to rain and Mr. Holder asked his wife if she had brought a long sleeve shirt for their son. She said she hadn’t. A verbal confrontation commenced. Eventually Ms Holder bumped her husband and he instinctively pushed her away.

Ms Holder called the police. When the officers arrived Ms Holder told them that her husband had pushed her. Mr. Holder then told the officers that his wife had initiated the verbal confrontation and that she made the initial contact. He urged them to talk to nearby witnesses. He was then arrested and charged with simple assault. After the arrest the officers spoke to a couple of witnesses. None of the witnesses saw the confrontation but one said he heard that Ms Holder initiated the dispute.

The trial court granted summary judgment and Mr. Holder appealed on Fourth Amendment grounds as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

An arrest violates the Fourth Amendment if is not based on probable cause. Probable cause exists when

at the time of the arrest, the “facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge . . . are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.

Probable cause requires only a probability that the arrestee committee the crime. Certainty is not necessary.The officer’s decision needs only to be reasonable.

According to the court the officers have no duty to check out the suspect’s defenses. Once they decide that probable cause exists and they can do that solely on the allegation of the alleged victim, they do not have to talk to witnesses or otherwise investigate whether or not the suspect committed the offense.

Mr. Holder further argued that New Hampshire law requires the officer to determine who was the primary physical aggressor. The law states

an arrest for abuse may be made without a warrant upon probable cause, whether or not the abuse is committed in the presence of the peace officer. When the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the persons are committing or have committed abuse against each other, the officer need not arrest both persons, but should arrest the person the officer believes to be the primary physical aggressor. In determining who is the primary physical aggressor, an officer shall consider the intent of this chapter to protect the victims of domestic violence, the relative degree of injury or fear inflicted on the persons involved, and any history of domestic abuse between these persons if that history can reasonably be obtained by the officer.

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 173-B:10, II.

But according to the First Circuit a state may impose restrictions on arrest greater than what is demanded by the Fourth Amendment. But the Federal court need not consider state law. It is limited to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, Since the Fourth Amendment only requires that the officer determine whether probable cause exists and since based upon Ms Holder’s statement probable cause existed summary judgment was properly granted.

The charges against Mr. Holder were eventually dismissed. But he had to suffer the consequences of being arrested. Perhaps he spent some time in jail. He may have had to hire a lawyer. If he had money he may have had to pay for a bail bond. He could have had consequences on his job due to time missed either while in jail or attending court appearances. His wife may have gotten a restraining order preventing hem from seeing his son. His child support may have been raised if as a result of the arrest he was not able to share custody or have visitation with his son.

All of this could have been prevented if the police had done a thorough investigation before arresting Holder. As a result of the grant of summary judgment Holder is not entitled to any compensation for the poor investigation prior to his arrest.

This is going too far. James Nichols was arrested for going to church.

Nichols is a convicted sex offender. North Carolina has a law that convicted sex offenders cannot come within 300 feet of any place intended primarily for the use, care or supervision of minors. Nichols was arrested on a Sunday afternoon after attending services at the Moncure Baptist Church. The Moncure Baptist Church has a daycare program for children.

Nichols’ arrest has three problems. The first is a factual issue. Can a church be a place intended primarily for the use, care or supervision of minors? I doubt it. The primary purpose of a church is to propagate religion and serve as a place of prayer. Second, it is vague. What is a place intended primarily for the use, care or supervision of minors? Would that include a residence where a family with children live? Would that include a courthouse which has a daycare center for children while their parents are in court? Would it include a public beach? Due process demands that laws be written in a way that people can know when they violate the law. Here there is no way to know what places the sex offender must avoid. Third and most important is that the law criminalizes First Amendment activity. The First Amendment states, in pertinent part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

The Fourteenth Amendment extended the First Amendment to the states and thus legislatures are prohibited from making any law which prohibits the the free exercise of religion. Nichols is challenging the arrest and the interpretation of the law. I hope he wins.

This is not to say that the church cannot forbid Nichols from joining the church or attending services. The minister or the congregation can ban him, although one of the goals of most churches is to bring sinners to religion. But the government cannot under the First Amendment prevent people from practicing their religion. Why don’t we leave the question to the minister and the congregation. They can determine whether they feel threatened by Nichols’ presence.

Last May the Ninth Circuit ruled that it was not a violation of Charles Byrd’s civil rights to be searched by a female sheriff’s deputy during a pretrial detention at Maricopa County (Phoenix) Durango jail. Apparently the Court is now having second thoughts because a majority of the judges on the Ninth Circuit voted to grant an en banc hearing where eleven of the judges will reconsider the issue.

During a search of his housing area in the jail for contraband, Byrd was ordered to strip to his underwear. Then a female cadet was ordered to search him including his groin area through his underwear even though male officers were nearby and could have performed the search. The opinion states:

When it was Byrd’s turn, the officers ordered Byrd to walk
over to the cadets, stand facing away from them, raise his
arms above his head, and spread his legs. O’Connell
approached Byrd from behind and conducted the search as
follows: She ran her hands across the waistband of Byrd’s
boxer shorts and pulled the waistband out a few inches to
check for anything hidden or taped inside; she did not look
into his boxer shorts. She lightly frisked over his boxer shorts
and down the outside of his thigh, stopping at the bottom of
the shorts. Through the boxer shorts, O’Connell moved
Byrd’s scrotum and penis with the back of her hand in order
to frisk his groin, applying light pressure to feel for contraband.
She then placed her hand at the bottom of his buttocks,
ran it upward over his boxers, and separated the cheeks to
search for any contraband taped, placed, or hidden inside

The original Ninth Circuit panel stated:

We are troubled by the overall circumstances
of the search in question. The scope of the search was
invasive in that it involved contact with Byrd’s genital region,
albeit through his boxer shorts. The embarrassment inherent
in such a pat down and partial strip search was amplified by
several factors: the cross-gender aspect; the fact that it took
place in the presence of many officers and cadets, one third
of whom were female; and that it took place in the presence
of a person with a hand-held camera, notwithstanding the fact
that the record does not give rise to the inference that Byrd’s
search was recorded.

But it found that the search did not violate the Fourth or the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. It found that the search was done for a legitimate security need of the jail and it was done pursuant to jail regulations limiting the cross gender physical connection. Therefore it complied with the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Judge Fernandez dissented from the panel’s finding that the search complied with the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. While he admitted that cross gender searches might in some circumstances be necessary, he found no emergency or particular need for a cross gender search in this case and without an emergency he stated the reasonableness requirement was not met.

Now the Ninth Circuit will have a chance to review and reconsider its decision.

Joseph Thomas was pulled over by an officer for a traffic violation. The officer then properly checked to see if Thomas had any warrants. The officer found no warrants in the name of Joseph Thomas but he did find a warrant in the name of Joshua Thomas for having six outstanding parking tickets. For some unknown reason Joshua Thomas’ warrant had Joseph Thomas’ drivers license number on it, although it had different addresses.

Thomas sued in Federal court on various state and Federal grounds, including violation of his Fourth Amendment and Due Process rights. He argued that under Illinois law officers had no right to prosecute individuals for failure to pay parking tickets.

The Seventh Circuit ruled that Thomas did not have standing to sue under the grounds that there was no right to arrest someone for failure to pay parking tickets since it was Joshua Tomas, not Joseph Thomas who failed to pay his parking tickets.

Thomas’ Due Process claim was that he did not receive notice that he could be arrested for not paying traffic tickets. But the Court easily denied this claim since Joseph Thomas did not have any outstanding parking tickets he would not have received notice even if the city gave such notices.

As to the Fourth Amendment claim the court citing Supreme Court decision in Atwater found that if there is probable cause for the arrest there is no Fourth Amendment violation even if there is no right to arrest the defendant under the statute.

But the problem here is that Thomas suffered a grievous wrong. He was arrested and forced to put up bail for a crime he did not commit. But there appears to be no remedy for the wrong. Usually in these cases you argue the lack of probable cause. But that’s a tough standard to meet. Without really discussing it the Seventh Circuit seems to accept that the officer had probable cause to arrest Thomas based on the fact that the warrant for Joshua Thomas had Joseph Thomas’ license number on it.

In People. Nguyen the California Supreme Court answers the question of whether a juvenile conviction, in which California does not grant a jury trial can serve as a prior conviction under Apprendi In Apprendi the United States Supreme Court ruled that in order to sentence someone to an aggravated sentence all facts must be determined by a jury or by admission. The Supreme Court left one exception to the rule and that is prior convictions. It said:

Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, under California law, a finding that a crime was committed in juvenile court is an adjudication, not a conviction and as Justice Kennard points out in dissent one reason for this is that a juvenile is not permitted to have a jury trial.

Nguyen, as part of a plea bargain, plead to possession of a weapon by a convicted felon and submitted the question of whether a prior juvenile adjudication for assault with a deadly weapon was a strike under the Three Strikes Law to a Court trial. The court found that it was a strike and therefore doubled his sentence from 16 months to 32 months. If he had two strikes he would have been sentenced to a minimum of 25 years to life.

The majority gives two reasons for finding that an adjudication in a juvenile matter can be used a prior conviction in a three strikes case despite not being found to be true by a jury.

First in the adult matter all findings of fact are made by a jury. The jury is allowed to determine whether or not there is a prior conviction and whether the conviction is for a matter that comes within the purview of the Three Strikes Law. Since the failure to submit the juvenile case to a jury is not in the case for which the person is going to be sentenced the matter is not strictly one that comes under Apprendi.

Second, under Apprendi the issue which triggers the additional punishment is not the felonious conduct which lead to the juvenile adjudication, but rather the fact of the prior adjudication. As the Supreme Court stated in Apprendi it is the fact of the conviction, not the felonious conduct which increases the sentence.

If the issue is not the felonious conduct, but rather the fact of a prior conviction and if we assume that for purposes of the three strikes law a conviction and an adjudication are the same thing as the Court does then the defendant gets a trial on all matters which increase the sentence since he/she is entitled to a trial on whether or not there was a prior conviction.

But as Kennard points out the purpose for doubling the sentence for a prior strike is not the fact of the conviction but rather the fact that the individual continues to perform felonious conduct. Furthermore Appprendi justifies the prior conviction exception to the requirement that any fact used to increase a sentence must be approved by a jury by arguing that

unlike virtually any other consideration used to enlarge the possible penalty for an offense . . . a prior conviction must itself have been established through procedures satisfying the fair notice, reasonable doubt, and jury trial guarantees.

Thus if a prior conviction is only exempt from the need for being found by a jury if it is based on fair notice, reasonable doubt and a jury trial the facts of a juvenile conviction, found without a jury trial cannot be used to increase a sentence.