Principles of a lower court's discretion according to SCOTUS

The decision in Beard, comparing the per curiam (unsigned) opinion in Michigan v. Fischer, Stevens and Sotomayor dissenting (opinion here); the Court swoops in to reverse the trial judge and appellate affirmation in Fischer ruling in favor of suppression motion while in Beard narrowly holds on the basis that discretion in the lower courts ought to be preserved.

Makes sense as long as one does not take into account principle too strongly.

Warrant, Searches, and Qualified Immunity

Here is the Scotuswiki on a Supreme Court case that promises to be interesting to say the least. Quickly, the court's oral argument has taken place and further briefing ordered on whether Saucier v Katz (2001) should be overruled. More, after digestion commentary, to be forthcoming.

This is important because the qualified immunity test maintained in Saucier essentially makes it impossible to determine what "clearly established law" is in this context. And that is important because in the absence of a common sense understanding, any arbitrary, unreasonable, boorish and/or stupid conduct of police and other government actors cannot be held to account by the common citizen simply because the bad government actors were unable to determine that their conduct violated or would violate "clearly established law."

GOBAMA! GO!

In its other two certiorari grants, the Court agreed to examine law enforcement’s ability to conduct a warrantless search of the automobile’s passenger compartment incident to the arrest (Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542) and when erroneous jury instructions can lead to habeas corpus relief (Chrones v. Pulido, No. 07-544). DC Dicta

Request for Cert here in Bell v Cone, earlier Supreme Court decisions here and here. The petition challenges the application of a technique used widely by the states' attorneys to dispose of state habeas actions: the ignored federal claim. By ignoring federal claims under guise of state rules of procedure, or simply for no reason whatsoever, states have been able to argue that vague elements of the "procedural default" doctrine apply. I'm glad to see that this form of legal abuse is getting the attention it deserves. I'm sorry to see that it takes a capital case and a big rich law firm to bring it up with any force.