Skip to content
Version 1.0.0
Sentencing Law and Policy
Part of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Seeking input and insights concerning recent SCOTUS criminal procedure arguments

By Douglas Berman

As detailed in this SCOTUSblog round-up post, yesterday and today has had notable criminal justice action in the Supreme Court:

The Court heard argument yesterday in two cases involving the use of drug-detection dogs.  In Florida v. Jardines, the Court considered whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected marijuana grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. In Florida v. Harris, the Court considered whether an alert by a trained drug-detection dog provides sufficient probable cause to search a vehicle….

After postponing Tuesday’s oral arguments because of Hurricane Sandy, the Court [also has heard] arguments in two cases this morning.  In Bailey v. United States, the Court will consider whether police executing a search warrant can detain someone who left the premises to be searched before the search began.  At The Atlantic, Daniel Epps argues that the case “should tell us something about just how interested Justice Scalia is in rethinking Fourth Amendment law in his remaining years on the Court.”

The Court [also now has heard] argument in Chaidez v. United States, in which it will consider whether Padilla v. Kentucky, in which it held that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation, applies retroactively.

I have left out a bunch of links and commentary from the SCOTUSblog round-up, though I urge anyone interested in these issues to click through to see what others are already saying about these cases. Not surprisingly, Chaidez has garnered the least attention so far, even though it is probably the only case from these two days of argument likely to get hard-core sentencing fans excited.  The oral argument transcript from Chaidez is available at this link, and I hope to find time late tonight to read and comment upon what the Justices had to say about Padilla and retroactivity.