by TChris

Busting down a door is much more exciting than knocking and waiting for an answer, but unless the police have a good reason not to knock, the Fourth Amendment requires officers executing a search warrant to "knock and announce" their presence and to give the occupant a reasonable time to answer. What amount of time is "reasonable" is often a hotly contested question, but a judge in Maricopa County, Arizona held that six seconds wasn't enough.

Describing a drug raid on a Hell's Angels clubhouse as an "attack," the judge criticized the aggressive police practices used during the search.

Agents knocked at the door and waited just six seconds for Michael Wayne Coffelt to answer. When he didn't, they used a diversionary grenade and broke a window in the back of the house.

Although Coffelt then came to the door armed with a gun, the judge noted that it is reasonable for a person who has just been attacked with a grenade to arm himself.

by TChris

The Ohio Supreme Court today reversed the conviction and death sentence imposed upon Terrell Yarbrough, ruling that he could not be prosecuted in Ohio for murders that occurred in Pennsylvania. The court had harsh words for the players in the case who evidently overlooked the jurisdictional issue.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer criticized prosecutors, defense attorneys and the trial judge for not recognizing the murder case shouldn't have been brought in Ohio. "One would expect that those charged with the responsibility of participating in the prosecution of a defendant who is subject to the ultimate penalty would exercise more diligence," Moyer said.

Yarbrough is alleged to have kidnapped and robbed two people in their Ohio apartment, and to have killed them in Pennsylvania, twelve miles away.

by TChris

Even states that aggressively prosecute pot smokers agree that California is entitled to try its own approach -- permitting patients to use medicinal marijuana, at least where the weed doesn't travel in interstate commerce -- without federal interference. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will agree (TalkLeft's coverage of the issue, argued in Ashcroft v. Raich, is collected here), but Jonathan Adler today takes a serious look at the federalism concerns underlying California's struggle to chart its own course on this divisive issue.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that universities can bar military recruiters from campus and not lose federal funding as a result. The suit was brought by a consortium of law schools and legal scholars. They brought the suit because they object to the military's exclusion policy concerning gays and lesbians.

A 1995 law, known as the Solomon Amendment, bars the federal government from disbursing money to colleges and universities that obstruct campus recruiting by the military. As amended and interpreted over the years, the law prohibits disbursements to all parts of a university, including its physics department and medical school, if any of its units, like its law school, make military recruiting even a little more difficult.

Billions of dollars are at stake, and no university has been willing to defy the government. Indeed, several of the law schools that are members of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the group that sued to block the new law, have not been publicly identified.

The Court found the law violates the First Amendment's guarantee of the right to "convey a message opposing discrimination" and against compelled speech. Bottom line, according to the winning side:

"Enlightened institutions have a First Amendment right to exclude bigots. In a free society, the government cannot co-opt private institutions to issue the government's message."

by TChris

Faced with the novel argument that federal courts should protect state citizens from a state court's "tyrannical" interpretation of a state constitution, the United States Supreme Court declined to review a failed challenge to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The challenge, brought by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, claimed that the Massachusetts Supreme Court violated the federal constitutional guarantee to "a Republican Form of Government" by legalizing same-sex marriage. The challenge was rejected in the First Circuit (search for "04-1621" under "Opinions").

Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said.

Massachusetts legislators may decide to put the issue before state voters in 2006.

The San Francisco Chronicle provides this concise explanation of the issue in Ashcroft vs. Raich, the medical marijuana case that will be argued today at the Supreme Court:

The question before the court is whether individual patients -- and, possibly, some of their suppliers -- are immune from federal enforcement.

The argument goes like this: The Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. But no interstate commerce is involved when patients, acting legally under state law, use marijuana that was grown within the state and supplied without charge.

The counterargument, by the government and its allies, is that all illicit drug use affects interstate commerce. Even freely supplied marijuana boosts the demand for the drug, reduces the overall supply and may affect the price, the government says; in addition, pot looks the same whether it's grown locally or shipped between states.

For an exhaustive case primer, you need look no further than Drug War Rant.

We still haven't run across a link where you can listen live to the oral arguments. If you find one, please post it in the comments.

by TChris

Yesterday, TalkLeft discussed the potential consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Raich, a case that will be argued tomorrow. For still more coverage of the interesting clash between two opposing, conservative views -- the desire to promote states' rights by restricting the federal government's ability to enact legislation that purports to regulate interstate commerce while having only an intrastate effect, and the desire to punish marijuana smokers -- The New York Times provides this background about Angel Raich and the issues that her case presents.

There is a lot riding on the outcome of Ashcroft v. Raich , which will be argued Monday in the Supreme Court. If the Court rules for the Government, lawful medicinal users in nine states may be out of luck. While it will still be lawful for them to use marijuana under state law, the feds will still be able to prosecute them. The Marijuana Policy Project is not giving up, no matter which way the court rules:

"The most important thing to know is that this case will not impact the right of states to enact their own medical marijuana laws," said Rob Kampia, executive director of MPP, which is based in Washington, D.C. "If the Supreme Court rules our way, the federal government's war on patients will come to an abrupt end in the 10 states with medical marijuana laws, On the other hand, if the Court rules against us, then we're back to where we started -- patients will be protected from arrest under state law, but not under federal law."

The John Ashcroft legacy will include, in addition to the Patriot Act, the validity of medical marijuana raids. On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Raich v. Ashcroft. Check out Drug War Rant, which has compiled an incredibly useful guide to the case and the issues it presents. As Pete says, it is a historic case that

....may have significant impact on the future of medical marijuana, states' rights, federal power, and the meaning of the commerce clause. Possibly the most important case in recent years.

Our prior coverage of the case is accessible here.

by TChris

Members of the extreme right are fond of labeling judges as "activists" -- at least if the judge refuses to favor the government in criminal cases, the interests of big business in civil cases, or the narrow-minded agenda of the right in civil rights cases. But judges who interpret state and federal constitutions aren't "activists" for doing so -- they're just doing their jobs.

Last year's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to protect gay marriage as a matter of state constitutional law has been so upsetting to the right (none of whom are actually being forced to enter into a gay marriage) that other state judges may fear to exercise the independent judgment that their jobs require.

Some legal observers say the backlash over the Massachusetts court's decision on gay marriage could have a chilling effect on other state courts.

Still, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall makes no apologies -- nor should she.

"I think judges play an important constitutional role, and the label that somebody puts onto that is one that varies from time to time. ... I -- like, I think, 350 other judges -- do the best they can to uphold the constitution, and the statutes and the common law in this commonwealth," she said, "and then we move on to the next case."

Bump and update: The ACLU hails the decision. More case information is available here. The decision is here. (TL)

**************
by TChris

An alien who is a permanent resident of the United States can be deported after conviction of "a crime of violence" that carries a potential sentence of at least one year. A "crime of violence" requires the use of physical force against another. The Supreme Court decided today (in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist) that Josue Leocal, a Haitian citizen, cannot be deported despite his Florida conviction of causing injury by drunk driving because he did not "use" force when he negligently caused an accident.

Chalk this one up as a loss for John Ashcroft.

Crimes and Federalism asks, "Has the Eighth Circuit expanded the scope of a drug-related search beyond reason? You decide."

Police had a search warrant authorizing the search and seizure of "crack cocaine, marijuana, heroin, weapons, U.S. currency, drug transaction records, and any other instruments of the crime." The Court had to decide what is covered by ""any other instruments?" The answered turned out to be just about everything but the kitchen sink: