Well, the Supreme Court is starting off the New Year with a bang in the criminal procedure and sentencing arena. This morning it handed down two big opinions, one involving the 4th Amendment, and one involving consecutive sentencing.
In Herring v. United States, the Court held that lower courts need not suppress evidence obtained following an arrest when the arrest was made only due to erroneous information provided by another law enforcement agency. As Tom Goldstein at Scotusblog points out, what looks like a narrow 4th A. decision--whether the Court’s prior ruling that errors by judicial clerks do not trigger the exclusionary rule should be applied to police clerks--may well have much large implications. This is due to the majority's broad reasoning: "[W]e conclude that when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements,” the exclusionary rule does not apply. (Slip op. at 12).
In other words, this could mean that the Supreme Court has just extended the good faith exception for police officers--which would be a huge change in the law.
In Oregon v. Ice, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not bar judges from imposing consecutive sentences based on facts not found by a jury. (full disclosure: I helped prepare defendant's counsel for oral argument). This holding, disappointing to many sentencing scholars, including myself, essentially determined that the scope of Blakely's 6th Amendment right to have facts determined by a jury does not reach to the trial court's decision to impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences for any one defendant. The decision was a close one--5 to 4--with Justice Scalia, long a proponent of Blakely and jury rights in sentencing, authoring the dissent.
I will have more to say on Oregon v. Ice after I have fully digested the opinion, since it involves not only sentencing but my home state of Oregon!
Comments