Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the landmark decision in Riley v California in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that a warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of cell phones during an arrest is unconstitutional.

washington-dc-6-1235114-300x202
The Cases

The cases that eventually became the basis of the decision in Riley v. California[1] are interesting to say the least, and highlight why a Supreme Court decision on the matter was vital in settling the question of the constitutionality of these warrantless searches.

The consequences of a conviction have both short and long term collateral consequences for those arrested depending on the nature of the crime, the age at which the crime occurred, and whether it is a repeat offense. The long-term repercussions of a conviction, or guilty plea are difficult to foresee, and underscore the need for experienced and zealous legal representation, as well as a basic understanding of your rights.

iStock_000007696540XSmall-300x199

The Short Term Legal Repercussions of a Conviction

              The short-term repercussions of a conviction vary depending upon the age at which the offense was committed, whether the crime is a repeat offense, and the nature of the crime committed. The short-term repercussions result from operation of state and federal statutes, and vary in length.

In the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence, there is perhaps no greater rights that has been drilled into the minds of the public than those of the “Miranda Warning”. From movies to television shows, Law and Order to CSI, no phrase is more ubiquitous in cop dramas than the warnings enshrined in Miranda. However, these warnings, in their ubiquity are not fully understood by the American public. Such ignorance; the very reason why the Supreme Court enshrined these rights[1], has proven the warnings ineffective at actually informing suspects of what their rights actually mean.

iStock_000006229203XSmall-214x300
What is a Miranda Warning

The Miranda warning developed from the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona[2]. In this landmark decision the Supreme Court consolidated four cases of individuals who, during police interrogations, where not specifically informed of either their fifth amendment right to remain silent[3], their sixth amendment right to counsel[4], or both of these rights. All four cases also involved suspects who sat through between two and fourteen hours of police interrogations before they confessed.

Terry v. Ohio[1]’s “narrow” ruling on the constitutionality of police stop and pat downs absent probable cause has opened up a whole new world of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Court has sketched out the scope of these searches, seizures, and what remedies apply to constitutional violations resulting from them.

20170619_153435-300x175
Simple Scope Expansions for Vehicles

The Supreme Court quickly extended the principles of Terry from beat cops seeing suspicious behavior on the street, to police officers who see suspicious behavior on the road and in vehicles. Beginning with Pennsylvania v. Mimms[2], the Court allowed for officers to ask people to exit their vehicle and conduct a “Terry Frisk” when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.

Today marks the 12th anniversary of the decision in Gonzales v. Raich, a decision whose repercussions still resonate across the legal marijuana market. Following precedent, the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause[1] of the Constitution allowed for the federal government to criminalize the private cultivation of marijuana, even if that cultivation was in compliance with state law.

iStock_000009135835_ExtraSmall-300x190
The Case

The facts of the case demonstrate federalism at work. In 1996, California ratified proposition 215 otherwise known as “The Compassionate Use act of 1996”. This act legalized the use, sale and cultivation of medical marijuana with a recommendation from a doctor. California had become the third state to legalize medical marijuana, and the first to legalize it via referendum.

The phrase “Stop and Frisk” has become a common feature of today’s political debate. The practice is often brought up in discussions of police tactics, court cases, and criminal justice. However, the average person has little awareness of the jurisprudence surrounding the practice. Unfortunately, people must be aware of what the practice actually is to properly safe guard their constitutional rights against abusive and unconstitutional police action.

iStock_000006746569XSmall-300x199
What is “Stop and Frisk”?

The phrase “Stop and Frisk” is a shortened way of describing two distinct government actions of a Terry stop, and a Terry frisk both of which arose out of the 1968 case of Terry v Ohio[1]. Terry v Ohio has proven to be one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in terms of the practical impact on the fourth amendment[2].  Terry outlined a new way of interpreting the meaning of the fourth amendment’s reasonableness and probable cause requirements in the context of a search and seizure.

The protections enshrined in the ubiquitous words of the Miranda rights are meant to protect your right against self-incrimination. However, these rights are not self-executing, and require affirmative invocation in order to be effective. The need for invocation is particularly important regarding the right to remain silent.

20170619_153435-300x175Break your Silence to be Silent

In order to invoke your right to silence, you must affirmatively invoke that right[1]. Following the decision of Berghuis v. Thompkins[2] The Supreme Court in a 5-4 judgment has held that to invoke your right to remain silent, you must affirmatively invoke that right. If you fail to affirmatively invoke your right to silence but remain silent, that silence may be used against you to show that you had knowledge of your right to remain silent.

Today marks the 48th anniversary of the decision in Leary v. United States, and often forgotten Supreme Court case from 1969 that effectively legalized marijuana on the federal level with the declaration that the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act violated the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.

Supreme Court
The Case[1]

The facts behind the case are interesting to say the least. On December 20th 1965 Doctor Timothy Leary; a famous professor, psychologist, and political activist, left on a road trip from New York to the state of Yucatan in Mexico with his two adult children, and two others.

Fotolia_62904321_Subscription_Monthly_M-300x300In April 2016, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced it was reconsidering marijuana’s current list as a Schedule 1 Drug in the Controlled Substance Act. This announcement was met with skepticism and cautious optimism. The decision of the DEA to reclassify marijuana in the Controlled Substance List would allow national marijuana reform to circumvent the large hurdle of congressional action.

The State of Federal Marijuana Law

Currently, marijuana is illegal at the federal level under the Controlled Substance Act which defines marijuana as a Schedule 1 Drug. These schedules are characterized as:

iStock_000006229203XSmall-214x300As the digital age advances, technology becomes ever more entwined into our daily lives. Stunning revelations about mass government surveillance[1] have led many to wonder what privacy protections still remain for citizens. With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia[2]; the most ardent defender of the Fourth Amendment on the Supreme Court, some feel that the Amendment’s protections will continue to erode in the digital age.

What is the Fourth Amendment?

The Fourth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution is one of the bedrocks of our criminal justice system. While relatively short, the Amendment encapsulates a foundational idea of our government. It guarantees citizens’ protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and establishes the importance of a warrant.  The Fourth Amendment reads as such: