November 30, 2012

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 11/30, I collected the Quirion case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them on Monday. We again began the Cheap Escape case, getting through the set-up of the case. We will continue with the issues in that case on Monday. The assignment for Monday 12/3 is to re-read Cheap Escape and Robey (both previously assigned) and prepare a case brief of those cases (not to be handed in) so that we can efficiently discuss them.

POS 359 FEDERALISM
In class today, Friday 11/30 we continued going over the assigned articles. We finished up the Robertson article, and then discussed the Spence article on federal and state regulation of fracking. We will finish up the articles about local control of fracking, and wind turbine health and economic effects on Monday. The addition reading for Monday 12/3 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 497-509 of the text.

POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 11/30, I distributed three handouts: Assignment #2 (below), an article about Chief Justice Roberts and changing personnel in the executive branch and on the Court, and an article about the Supreme Court options regarding the various gay marriage cases that they were considering today. We went over the requirements for the assignment. I then went over the case of Florida v. Riley, the helicopter "search" case, and the four different views that it generated. The assignment for Monday 12/3 is to begin work on the Jardines paper.


Assignment #2 Supreme Court

Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.

Your first job as a new Associate Justice is to write a part of the Court’s opinion in the Jardines case. You have been spared the tedium of writing the Introduction to the case; your job is to write only the Discussion.

There are a number of issues and sub-issues generated by the case. The ultimate issue in Jardines is whether the dog sniff here constituted a “search”, so that’s not what I mean by the “issue”. I mean distinct questions that will lead to and be part of the resolution of that ultimate issue.

Here’s an example of what I mean by “issue” and “sub-issue”:
ISSUE:
Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband in this case?

SUB-ISSUES:
a) Does the expectation differ based on whether there’s been a “seizure” prior to the “search”?
b) Does the expectation differ based on whether the contraband is at the suspect’s home?
c) Does the expectation differ based on whether there’s at least “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a search, as opposed to just a hunch, or even no suspicion?
d) Is the whole concept of “no reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband” is simply circular, (meaning that you can’t be sure that you’re going to find drugs until you’ve searched and found them, and so you can’t justify a search based on your certainty of knowing what you’ll find.


Your assignment is to
1) identify at least two issues, (which can include the example above) together with whatever number of sub-issues have been generated within that issue, and, after clearly stating the issues and sub-issues,
2) discuss how, in your view, those issues and sub-issues should properly be resolved.
Here are some guidelines for that discussion that I want you to observe:

• You will need to discuss the relevant prior cases that are discussed in the Florida Supreme Court opinion, as well as referenced in the oral argument.

• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the side that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the opposite position?

• You should have at least three specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.


You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.

Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:

The next sub-issue that I will discuss is whether the whole concept of “no reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband” is simply circular. This objection was raised by Justice Kennedy (3:23) and Justice Sotomayor (4:18). They are incorrect. A trained narcotics detection dog does indeed only alert to one stimulus: the forbidden drug. The idea behind the 4th Amendment protection is to forbid the government from rummaging through protected spheres (persons, houses, papers, and effects), in an effort to see if the government can come up with something incriminating. The difference is that dog sniffs only reveal that which is illegal. Furthermore, if the whole concept were circular, then Place, Edmund and Caballes would have been wrongly decided.

Regarding citation form, you can cite U.S. Supreme Court opinions just by their name. If you cite the Florida Supreme Court opinion, tell me whether you're citing the majority opinion, the concurring opinion, or the dissenting opinion.


The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of class on Friday December 7th. If you cannot be in class on Friday, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.

The paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.