U.S. Supreme Court 05-26-11
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Grapkoch • May 25, 2011 • no comments
(Importing text file) |
(Importing text file) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''Read the full article for details about the following new cases: | + | ''Read the full article for details about the following new cases:'' |
| − | + | * Court Moots Issue Concerning Warrants for Child Interviews | |
| − | + | ||
| + | Earlier this term, the Court heard arguments in ''Camreta v. Greene''. That case had asked whether the traditional warrant/warrant exception requirements that apply to seizures of suspected criminals should apply to an interview of the child in light of reports of child abuse, or whether a balancing standard should apply instead. | ||
| + | However, the Court-in an [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1454.pdf opinion available here]-avoided the 4th Amendment question on mootness grounds: | ||
| − | + | <blockquote> | |
| − | + | ''In this case, the happenstance of S.G.'s moving across country and becoming an adult has deprived Camreta of his appeal rights. Mootness has frustrated his ability to challenge the Court of Appeals' ruling that he must obtain a warrant before interviewing a suspected child abuse victim at school. We therefore vacate the part of the Ninth Circuit's opinion that addressed that issue, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.'' | |
| − | + | </blockquote> | |
| − | + | Two concurring opinions appear (authored by Scalia and Sotomayor (joined by Breyer)), as well as one dissenting opinion (Kennedy joined by Thomas). For the most part, those opinions are targeted at the majority's decision that a party who prevails due to qualified immunity may nevertheless seek certiorari on the constitutional question at issue so long as the issue is justiciable in all other respects. | |
| − | + | For more infomation, the ''Camreta ''case page at SCOTUSblog is [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/camreta-v-greene?wpmp_switcher=desktop available here]. | |
| − | + | [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1454.pdf ''Camreta v. Greene''] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09- | + | |
{{wl-publish: 2011-05-25 21:00:00 -0700 | grapkoch }} | {{wl-publish: 2011-05-25 21:00:00 -0700 | grapkoch }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:02, December 21, 2012
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Court Moots Issue Concerning Warrants for Child Interviews
Earlier this term, the Court heard arguments in Camreta v. Greene. That case had asked whether the traditional warrant/warrant exception requirements that apply to seizures of suspected criminals should apply to an interview of the child in light of reports of child abuse, or whether a balancing standard should apply instead.
However, the Court-in an opinion available here-avoided the 4th Amendment question on mootness grounds:
In this case, the happenstance of S.G.'s moving across country and becoming an adult has deprived Camreta of his appeal rights. Mootness has frustrated his ability to challenge the Court of Appeals' ruling that he must obtain a warrant before interviewing a suspected child abuse victim at school. We therefore vacate the part of the Ninth Circuit's opinion that addressed that issue, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Two concurring opinions appear (authored by Scalia and Sotomayor (joined by Breyer)), as well as one dissenting opinion (Kennedy joined by Thomas). For the most part, those opinions are targeted at the majority's decision that a party who prevails due to qualified immunity may nevertheless seek certiorari on the constitutional question at issue so long as the issue is justiciable in all other respects.
For more infomation, the Camreta case page at SCOTUSblog is available here. Camreta v. Greene
