POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/31, we first went over the Maine statute that covers situations like that Ms. Mobbley found herself in. We then went over the Holland case, and compared the power of the Florida Supreme Court regarding common law crimes with Maine law regarding common law crimes. We started our discussion of Lawrence, talking about the role of morality in legislation. We compared this case to Glucksberg, in which similar considerations were at play. We will begin class on Tuesday with a more legal analysis of Lawrence, looking at the structure of Kennedy's opinion, whether this is a fundamental interest, and the role of precedent. I will then go over last June's Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage recognition by federal law. The assignment for Tuesday 11/5 is to re-read Lawrence, looking at the structure, fundamental interests, and precedent.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/31, I distributed one handout, an edited version of the recent Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Ormsby. If you were not in class and did not get the handout, you can access the case by going to the Maine Supreme Court opinion page:
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
and scrolling down to
2013 ME 88 State of Maine v. Thayne M. Ormsby October 29, 2013
Read through paragraph 30 of the opinion.
We went over the Escobedo opinion, as well as the dissent, and then did the same with the Miranda opinion. I also put a question to the class that we will decide on Tuesday: whether to spend most of the rest of the semester on Miranda-type questions, or whether to move on in the text to 6th Amendment jurisprudence (Chapter 12 of the text).
The assignment for Tuesday 11/5 is to read Ormsby, and to ask yourself these specific question: do the techniques employed by the police run afoul of either the spirit or the letter of any part of Miranda?
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
October 29, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding Hindering Apprehension, Criminal Common Law, and the Mandated Reporting. I returned the exams from last week, and we went over them. We then talked about the Mobbley case, discussing both the view of the majority and that of the dissent. We will pick up with the Holland case on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/31 is first to read the Maine statutes handed out, which address somewhat the situation in both Mobbley and Holland. Also, read in the text and prepare to discuss through p. 70 (Lawrence v. Texas).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I distributed one handout, an article about a Third Circuit decision from last week that addressed questions raised in both Jones and Davis. I returned the exams from last week, and we went over them. We discussed that Third Circuit opinion in Katzin, and how it dealt with both the need for warrants in the use of a GPS tracking device, and the applicability of Davis good faith reliance in deciding about suppression of the evidence. We then began our discussion of Escobedo, going over the text of the 5th and 6th Amendment protections. We will continue with Escobedo on Thursday, outlining the majority and dissenting opinions. The additional reading for Thursday 10/31 is to read the handout, and also through p. 529 of the text (Miranda).
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding Hindering Apprehension, Criminal Common Law, and the Mandated Reporting. I returned the exams from last week, and we went over them. We then talked about the Mobbley case, discussing both the view of the majority and that of the dissent. We will pick up with the Holland case on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/31 is first to read the Maine statutes handed out, which address somewhat the situation in both Mobbley and Holland. Also, read in the text and prepare to discuss through p. 70 (Lawrence v. Texas).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/29, I distributed one handout, an article about a Third Circuit decision from last week that addressed questions raised in both Jones and Davis. I returned the exams from last week, and we went over them. We discussed that Third Circuit opinion in Katzin, and how it dealt with both the need for warrants in the use of a GPS tracking device, and the applicability of Davis good faith reliance in deciding about suppression of the evidence. We then began our discussion of Escobedo, going over the text of the 5th and 6th Amendment protections. We will continue with Escobedo on Thursday, outlining the majority and dissenting opinions. The additional reading for Thursday 10/31 is to read the handout, and also through p. 529 of the text (Miranda).
Thursday, October 24, 2013
October 24, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/24,the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 57-64.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/24,the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 517-523.
In class today, Thursday 10/24,the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 57-64.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/24,the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/29 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 517-523.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
October 22, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, I distributed one handout, an article about a case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear defining the level of mental retardation below which it would be cruel and usual to execute a convict. We first went over the Suggs v. Norris case, going through the multiple questions that the North Carolina court considered. We also discussed generally the requirements for a valid contract, and the question of public policy regarding the enforcement of contracts. We then moved on to Gregg v. Georgia, going over the three opinions in the text. I went over a number of cases that have refined the concept of capital punishment, including Coker v. Georgia, Ford v. Wainwright, Thompson v. Oklahoma, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, and Kennedy v. Louisiana. I also discussed two cases regarding life imprisonment sentences for juveniles, Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama. Finally we discussed the handout regarding mental retardation in the case just accepted by the Supreme Court, Hall v. Florida. On Thursday 10/24 we will have our first exam, open-book and open-note (but only your own). If you find that you are missing any handouts, please email me about what you need prior to class. If an emergency arises and you are unable to make it to class, you must email me asap to discuss alternative arrangements.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, we first finished our discussion of Davis. We covered the differing views on the relationship between exclusionary rule analysis and retroactivity analysis. We then went through the three assigned exclusionary rule textbook cases, Leon, Hudson, and Herring. We looked at how each of these cases expanded the exceptions to the use of suppression as a remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. On Thursday 10/24 we will have our first exam, open-book and open-note (but only your own). If you find that you are missing any handouts, please email me about what you need prior to class. If an emergency arises and you are unable to make it to class, you must email me asap to discuss alternative arrangements.
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, I distributed one handout, an article about a case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear defining the level of mental retardation below which it would be cruel and usual to execute a convict. We first went over the Suggs v. Norris case, going through the multiple questions that the North Carolina court considered. We also discussed generally the requirements for a valid contract, and the question of public policy regarding the enforcement of contracts. We then moved on to Gregg v. Georgia, going over the three opinions in the text. I went over a number of cases that have refined the concept of capital punishment, including Coker v. Georgia, Ford v. Wainwright, Thompson v. Oklahoma, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, and Kennedy v. Louisiana. I also discussed two cases regarding life imprisonment sentences for juveniles, Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama. Finally we discussed the handout regarding mental retardation in the case just accepted by the Supreme Court, Hall v. Florida. On Thursday 10/24 we will have our first exam, open-book and open-note (but only your own). If you find that you are missing any handouts, please email me about what you need prior to class. If an emergency arises and you are unable to make it to class, you must email me asap to discuss alternative arrangements.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/22, we first finished our discussion of Davis. We covered the differing views on the relationship between exclusionary rule analysis and retroactivity analysis. We then went through the three assigned exclusionary rule textbook cases, Leon, Hudson, and Herring. We looked at how each of these cases expanded the exceptions to the use of suppression as a remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. On Thursday 10/24 we will have our first exam, open-book and open-note (but only your own). If you find that you are missing any handouts, please email me about what you need prior to class. If an emergency arises and you are unable to make it to class, you must email me asap to discuss alternative arrangements.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
October 17, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/17, I distributed two handouts: the Comment Key to the White case briefs, and an article about the how the Supreme Court came to vote in favor of retaining the death penalty. I returned the White case briefs, and we went over them. We then looked at the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of property, exploring how the Brineys would have fared under Maine criminal law. I also went over the four mental states (mens rea) that define levels of culpability in Maine criminal law. I then gave the class a sample test, to better prepare for the open-book, open-note test we'll be having next Thursday 10/24. We reviewed proper citation form for both opinions and statutes. We began going over Suggs v. Norris, the estate contest case, getting as far as who the parties to the case are. The assignment for Tuesday 10/22 is to review both Suggs and Gregg (previously assigned) and to read and prepare to discuss the capital punishment article that I distributed.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/17, we first went over a sample test, in preparation for the open-book, open-note exam that we'll have next Thursday, 10/24. We then went through the Mapp case, looking at all of the opinions and where they clashed. We started the Davis case, comparing the majority and dissent in terms of the suppression issue. We will continue with Davis on Tuesday, picking up with the retroactivity question. The assignment for Tuesday 10/22 is to read through p. 517 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 10/17, I distributed two handouts: the Comment Key to the White case briefs, and an article about the how the Supreme Court came to vote in favor of retaining the death penalty. I returned the White case briefs, and we went over them. We then looked at the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of property, exploring how the Brineys would have fared under Maine criminal law. I also went over the four mental states (mens rea) that define levels of culpability in Maine criminal law. I then gave the class a sample test, to better prepare for the open-book, open-note test we'll be having next Thursday 10/24. We reviewed proper citation form for both opinions and statutes. We began going over Suggs v. Norris, the estate contest case, getting as far as who the parties to the case are. The assignment for Tuesday 10/22 is to review both Suggs and Gregg (previously assigned) and to read and prepare to discuss the capital punishment article that I distributed.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/17, we first went over a sample test, in preparation for the open-book, open-note exam that we'll have next Thursday, 10/24. We then went through the Mapp case, looking at all of the opinions and where they clashed. We started the Davis case, comparing the majority and dissent in terms of the suppression issue. We will continue with Davis on Tuesday, picking up with the retroactivity question. The assignment for Tuesday 10/22 is to read through p. 517 of the text.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
October 10, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/10 I distributed two handouts: my version of the White case brief, and the Maine criminal statute regarding the use of force in property offenses and in defense of premises. We went over the White case brief, which I will be returning next Thursday. Along the way, we also went over proper citation form for both Maine Supreme Court decisions and for Maine statutes, and the concept of dictum. There is no class on Tuesday 10/15, to mark the Day after Columbus Day Holiday. The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to read and try to figure out what Maine law says you can do in defense of your home, and to read and prepare to discuss pp. 41-56 in the text. Also, I announced to the class that I plan to have our first Test (open book and open note) on Thursday 10/24.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/10 I distributed two handouts: an article about the lawsuit challenging New York City's stop and frisk practice, and an edited version of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Davis v. U.S. We started our discussion by going over the qualified immunity parts of the Safford opinion (not included in the text). We then looked at the article describing the NYC lawsuit, and how NYC has come to interpret what is allowed to it by the Terry v. Ohio case. We then went through the Terry case, going both the majority and dissenting opinions.There is no class on Tuesday 10/15, to mark the Day after Columbus Day Holiday. The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to review Mapp (previously assigned) and to read and prepare to discuss the Davis case (handout). Also, I announced to the class that I plan to have our first Test (open book and open note) on Thursday 10/24.
In class today, Thursday 10/10 I distributed two handouts: my version of the White case brief, and the Maine criminal statute regarding the use of force in property offenses and in defense of premises. We went over the White case brief, which I will be returning next Thursday. Along the way, we also went over proper citation form for both Maine Supreme Court decisions and for Maine statutes, and the concept of dictum. There is no class on Tuesday 10/15, to mark the Day after Columbus Day Holiday. The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to read and try to figure out what Maine law says you can do in defense of your home, and to read and prepare to discuss pp. 41-56 in the text. Also, I announced to the class that I plan to have our first Test (open book and open note) on Thursday 10/24.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/10 I distributed two handouts: an article about the lawsuit challenging New York City's stop and frisk practice, and an edited version of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Davis v. U.S. We started our discussion by going over the qualified immunity parts of the Safford opinion (not included in the text). We then looked at the article describing the NYC lawsuit, and how NYC has come to interpret what is allowed to it by the Terry v. Ohio case. We then went through the Terry case, going both the majority and dissenting opinions.There is no class on Tuesday 10/15, to mark the Day after Columbus Day Holiday. The assignment for Thursday 10/17 is to review Mapp (previously assigned) and to read and prepare to discuss the Davis case (handout). Also, I announced to the class that I plan to have our first Test (open book and open note) on Thursday 10/24.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
October 8, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed one handout, my version of the Katko brief. We first talked about the White brief due Thursday, going over the format, and the three parts of the Issue. We then turned to the Katko case. We looked at primary versus secondary authority, mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following, distinguishing, and extending authority. We talked about the relationship between civil and criminal law, jury instruction, punitive damages, and bad lawyering. The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to finish the White case brief, due at the beginning of class.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/8,I distributed one handout, my version of the King outline. We briefly went over that outline, and some of the common challenges that the class faced. We then turned our attention to the list of exceptions to the warrant requirement. I went over Missouri v. McNeely, the recent U.S. Supreme Court case about whether the destruction of evidence inherent in the delay in drawing blood to test for blood-alcohol level justifies warrantless seizures of blood. I then went over an even more recent Maine Supreme Court, State v. Ntim, regarding whether consent to a dog sniff and to a subsequent search was tainted by a prior unconstitutional dog sniff and search. We discussed the Gant case, and then started our discussion of Safford. We left off with the discussion of qualified immunity, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 504 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 10/8, I distributed one handout, my version of the Katko brief. We first talked about the White brief due Thursday, going over the format, and the three parts of the Issue. We then turned to the Katko case. We looked at primary versus secondary authority, mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following, distinguishing, and extending authority. We talked about the relationship between civil and criminal law, jury instruction, punitive damages, and bad lawyering. The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to finish the White case brief, due at the beginning of class.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/8,I distributed one handout, my version of the King outline. We briefly went over that outline, and some of the common challenges that the class faced. We then turned our attention to the list of exceptions to the warrant requirement. I went over Missouri v. McNeely, the recent U.S. Supreme Court case about whether the destruction of evidence inherent in the delay in drawing blood to test for blood-alcohol level justifies warrantless seizures of blood. I then went over an even more recent Maine Supreme Court, State v. Ntim, regarding whether consent to a dog sniff and to a subsequent search was tainted by a prior unconstitutional dog sniff and search. We discussed the Gant case, and then started our discussion of Safford. We left off with the discussion of qualified immunity, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/10 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 504 of the text.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
October 3, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/3, Professor Nick Carnes of Duke University talked to the class about his research into the working class role in legislatures, and then he had the class figure out how parallel research might be conducted regarding the judiciary. The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to continue work on the White case brief. In addition, read and prepare to discuss pp. 36-41 of the text, including the case of Katko v. Briney.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/3, the class turned in the Maryland v. King outlines, and we went over them. I also went over two cases regarding the "emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement, Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) and Michigan v. Fisher (2009). I plan to return the outlines on Tuesday, and to distribute my own version of the outline. The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 480-492 of the text (including Gant and Safford).
In class today, Thursday 10/3, Professor Nick Carnes of Duke University talked to the class about his research into the working class role in legislatures, and then he had the class figure out how parallel research might be conducted regarding the judiciary. The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to continue work on the White case brief. In addition, read and prepare to discuss pp. 36-41 of the text, including the case of Katko v. Briney.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/3, the class turned in the Maryland v. King outlines, and we went over them. I also went over two cases regarding the "emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement, Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) and Michigan v. Fisher (2009). I plan to return the outlines on Tuesday, and to distribute my own version of the outline. The assignment for Tuesday 10/8 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 480-492 of the text (including Gant and Safford).
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
October 1, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/1, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Smith v. Idaho case brief, assignment #1 (reproduced below) and the text of White case itself. If you missed class, you can access the White case by going to the Maine Supreme Court site,
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
and scrolling down to July 11, 2013, State v. White, 2013 ME 66.
In class, we first went over the assignment, and I emphasized that your "facts" need to specific enough to provide a specific road map for how a party in the future could try to conform their actions to the requirements of the law. I also went over four levels of suspicion, (roadblock, hunch, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause) and how an "arrest" requires probable cause, while an investigatory stop only requires the lower level of reasonable suspicion.
We then went over the Smith case. I went over proper citation form for a state Supreme Court decision. We then went over the remainder of the case, emphasizing how to provide enough specificity in the brief to make it useful.
Thursday, 10/3, we will have a guest lecture by Professor Nick Carnes of Duke University. The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to begin work on the White case brief.
Assignment due Thursday, October 10, 2013
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. White, 2013 ME 66, 70 A3d. 1226.
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Think of the brief as an instruction manual for police: what actions do you take to ensure that the evidence you gather will be acceptable in court? Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 10/10, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/1 we first went over the Md. v. King outlining assignment due this Thursday 10/3. I went over the way in which the majority and dissenting opinions differed in their approach to the availability of "free-form" balancing of interests to determine reasonableness. I then discussed another recent Supreme Court case, Bailey v. U.S. in which the Court decided the extent of the warrant exception for detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant. The majority determined that the detention a mile away and five minutes away from the scene of the search warrant execution was not within the exception previously created by Michigan v. Summers. The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to complete work on the Md. v. King outline, due at the beginning of class Thursday 10/3.
In class today, Tuesday 10/1, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Smith v. Idaho case brief, assignment #1 (reproduced below) and the text of White case itself. If you missed class, you can access the White case by going to the Maine Supreme Court site,
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
and scrolling down to July 11, 2013, State v. White, 2013 ME 66.
In class, we first went over the assignment, and I emphasized that your "facts" need to specific enough to provide a specific road map for how a party in the future could try to conform their actions to the requirements of the law. I also went over four levels of suspicion, (roadblock, hunch, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause) and how an "arrest" requires probable cause, while an investigatory stop only requires the lower level of reasonable suspicion.
We then went over the Smith case. I went over proper citation form for a state Supreme Court decision. We then went over the remainder of the case, emphasizing how to provide enough specificity in the brief to make it useful.
Thursday, 10/3, we will have a guest lecture by Professor Nick Carnes of Duke University. The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to begin work on the White case brief.
Assignment due Thursday, October 10, 2013
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. White, 2013 ME 66, 70 A3d. 1226.
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Think of the brief as an instruction manual for police: what actions do you take to ensure that the evidence you gather will be acceptable in court? Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 10/10, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/1 we first went over the Md. v. King outlining assignment due this Thursday 10/3. I went over the way in which the majority and dissenting opinions differed in their approach to the availability of "free-form" balancing of interests to determine reasonableness. I then discussed another recent Supreme Court case, Bailey v. U.S. in which the Court decided the extent of the warrant exception for detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant. The majority determined that the detention a mile away and five minutes away from the scene of the search warrant execution was not within the exception previously created by Michigan v. Summers. The assignment for Thursday 10/3 is to complete work on the Md. v. King outline, due at the beginning of class Thursday 10/3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)