Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion that “a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment” and “we see no justification for expanding Miranda to confer a right to sue” under the federal law known as Section 1983.
What does the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Thompson v Clark mean for you.
A 2021 case involving an Iowa police department reveals how the Supreme Court is refining the exigent circumstances exemption.
The court overturned the lower-court decisions without ordering full briefing and argument, a sign it did not see them as close calls. There were no dissents.
Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan said police had no right to enter the man's home without a warrant for such a trivial offense.
The unanimous ruling overturned lower courts that said a Crow police officer should not have held a nontribal member who was found to have drugs and weapons in his truck.
The lower courts ruled that police could enter the home and under the so-called the community care-taking exception to the Constitution's warrant requirement. Representing Edward Caniglia, lawyer Shay Dvoretzky said that an exception like that would "eviscerate" the warrant protections of the Fourth Amendment.
The court determined that in order to sue for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to have been physically seized by law enforcement.
Some justices expressed concern about public safety if tribal officers lacked power to stop and detain non-Native Americans. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wondered what would happen if an officer encountered a known serial killer.
The Supreme Court said in an 8-1 decision that unless there's reason to believe otherwise, it's common sense for an officer to think the car's owner will be driving.
media brand
The secure and easy all-access connection to your content.
Bookmarked content can then be accessed anytime on all of your logged in devices!
Already a member? Log In