Articles Tagged with “Supreme Court”

Today marks the 41st anniversary of the landmark decision of South Dakota v. Opperman[1][2] in which the Supreme Court laid out the basis for what would be known as the Inventory search exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. This decision has allowed for a dramatic expansion in the number of warrantless searches the State can conduct.

car-1450553-300x225
The Case

The case that made up the basis of Opperman was surprisingly mundane, and yet indicative of the kind of cases that would be affected by this landmark ruling. In the early morning hours of December 10th, 1973, Mr. Opperman’s car was found illegally parked in downtown Vermillion, South Dakota. Pursuant to police procedures, the officers impounded the vehicle. However, as the officers impounded the car, they noticed a number of valuable items strewn about the interior of the vehicle. The officers, fearing that the items could be stolen opened the vehicle and inventoried the items inside of it. While searching the interior of the vehicle, the officers found a small amount of marijuana located in the glovebox. When Mr. Opperman came to the police station to retrieve his vehicle the following day, he was arrested on the spot for possession of marijuana.

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_000006052358XSmall.jpgThe right to remain silent is a hot topic of Constitutional rights. In a brief nutshell, this is how the right to remain silent works. A defendant’s silence cannot be used in Court to show his or her guilt. When a defendant can invoke this right, however, is a little bit of a tricky concept. First and foremost, the defendant has to be under arrest to invoke his right to remain silent. If a police officer arrests a suspect, the officer must read the suspect his Miranda rights, which includes the right to remain silent. There are other areas where silence receives different Constitutional treatment, such as the right to remain silent and not testify during trial. A criminal defendant’s silence is usually protected by the Constitution and not allowed to be used by the prosecution to prove guilt.

However, a recent Supreme Court decision has created new limits and rules on the right to silence. This decision is based on a recent Texas criminal case involving Genovevo Salinas. The defendant in this case was at a party that got out of hand. Shots were fired at the party and two men were killed as a result. The police found Salinas at the party and brought him in for questioning. Salinas had a shotgun that he turned over to the police and he began answering their questions. He was being cooperative until the police asked him why the shotgun shells that were found at the crime scene matched Salinas’s shotgun. Salinas did not answer this question and instead remained silent. At this point, Salinas was not under a formal arrest and was not given his Miranda warnings as a result.

Salinas was eventually charged with murder. During his trial, the prosecution aggressively used his silence about the shotgun during closing arguments. Salinas was convicted and appealed his case. His case eventually made it to the Supreme Court. When it reached the Supreme Court Justices, the main issue was whether the defendant’s silence could be used during the closing argument. The Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the silence was usable because it was pre-Miranda silence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals explained that “pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and that prosecutors may comment on such silence regardless of whether a defendant testifies.” Justice Samuel Alito further explained “Salinas’ Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer’s question. It has long been settled that the privilege ‘generally is not self-executing’ and that a witness who desires its protection must claim it.” So if you remain silent before you get arrested, that silence can be used to show your guilt unless you CLAIM your right to remain silent.