3D-printed firearms and police shooting responsibility – SCOTUSblog


534
534 points

Petitions of the week

This week we’re highlighting testimony petitions asking the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, when a state attorney general can be referred to a court in another state and when a police officer is immune from civil liability for shooting a passenger in a runaway car. .

Grewal distribution against defense It is a dispute between a New Jersey attorney and a Texas company that develops digital files used to manufacture 3D printed pistols. In 2018, the attorney general, Gerber Grewal, sent a cease and desist letter to Defense Distributed, warning that distributing such files to New Jersey residents over the Internet violated New Jersey law. In response, the company filed a lawsuit against Grewal in federal court in Texas. It sought an injunction barring Grewal from taking any enforcement action against the company, which it said was violating Amendments 1 and 2.

The Texas District Court rejected the lawsuit after finding that it had no personal jurisdiction over Grewall. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned and ruled that the case could continue. Grewal argues in his testimony petition that the Fifth Circuit’s decision conflicts with Supreme Court case law on personal jurisdiction. He also claims that the Fifth Circuit created a split over the question of whether state officials come under jurisdiction in other states only by sending stop and cease letters across state lines.

Hayward City vs Stoddard Nunez It results from a policeman shooting a passenger in a running car. In 2013, an officer in Hayward, California tried to stop a car on suspicion of drunk driving. Having initially stopped in a parking lot, the driver refused to get out of the car. Instead, he drove past the officer’s patrol car and fled the scene. The officer, who testified that the car had swept towards him as it was fleeing, fired nine shots at the car, killing one of the passengers. Passenger relatives filed a lawsuit against the officer and the city under 42 USC § 1983, Arguing that the officer violated the passenger’s right to be free from unreasonable spells.

The district court rejected the lawsuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated it, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that the officer fired the fatal shot after the vehicle had already passed him and posed no significant threat to the officer or the public. The officer and the city require the Supreme Court to hear the case to resolve two issues: (1) the appropriate level of generality that the courts should use to assess whether the officer is violating “clear law” for the purpose of determining whether the officer is entitled to eligible immunity, and ( 2) Whether shooting a passenger under these circumstances counts as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

This and others Petitions of the week Below:

Brown v. Polk County, Wisconsin
20-982
the case: Whether the Fourth Amendment permits prison officials to conduct physical searches and penetration into the vagina and / or anus of a pretrial detainee without a warrant, probable cause, or urgent circumstances, including cases of persons detained for non-violent, non-drug-related crimes such as theft.

Grewal distribution against defense
20-984
the case: Whether a non-resident state official subjects himself to personal jurisdiction in another forum state when he sends a single cease-and-desist letter to one resident of that state.

Smith in. Tyson
20-988
Problems: (1) Whether the review is required under Section 2254 From the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and Colleen vs. Penholster Violated by relying on the standard of “certain ambiguities” used by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to find a breach of due process without providing the requisite benefit of the suspicion to both the defense attorney and the first instance court; (2) Whether the decision of the Third Circuit to grant an exemption to habeas corpus on the basis of the jury’s alleged wrongful instructions in the murder trial of the state partner was erroneous due to the failure to apply the Supreme Court precedent in Waddington vs. Sarasod; And (3) whether, by ignoring entire sections of the trial court charge to the jury regarding partner liability and not presenting it in the context of the trial record, the Third Circuit erred in concluding that there is something substantial and not just. Possible possibility of a different outcome.

England v Hart
20-991
the case: Whether the “objective investigation” required before Davis v. United States The assertion of the right to a lawyer can be based on subjective factors.

Dominguez v. United States
20-1000
the case: Whether the burglary attempt under Hobbes’s Law It is described as a “crime of violence”, meaning that it “includes, as an element, the use of physical force or the attempt to use it or the threat to use it against another person or property.”

Hayward City, California vs Stoddard Nunez
20-1006
Problems: (1) whether the sudden turn of the speeding runaway driver deprives the officer threatening to shoot from qualifying immunity; And (2) whether a victim – an unintended passenger of a fleeing vehicle for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment has been “seized”.

Shane vs. Ramirez
20-1009
the case: Whether the application of the just rule was declared by the Supreme Court Martinez vs. Ryan Makes the Anti-terrorism law and an effective death penaltyWhich prevents the federal court from considering evidence outside the state court record when reviewing the merits of a habeas corpus claim if the prisoner or his attorney fails to develop the factual basis for the claim in state court, which is not applicable to the federal court merits Review of a habeas corpus claim .

Rranxburgaj v. Mayuras
20-1010
the case: Whether the legal decisions prior to the agencies ’discretionary decisions to initiate proceedings, adjudicate cases, or implement deportation orders“ arise from ”these decisions for the purposes of 8 USC § 1252 (g), Which states that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any foreigner arising from a decision or action by the attorney general of the United States to initiate proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute deportation orders against any A foreigner under this chapter.

Louisiana Board of Real Estate Appraisers v. Federal Trade Commission
20-1018
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
the case: Whether orders that deprive public entities of immunity from state action and under what circumstances are subject to immediate appeal under the doctrine of side orders.


Like it? Share with your friends!

534
534 points
admin

0 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *