Posted on Friday, November 20, 2020 2:15 pm by Amy Howe
On Friday morning, the Supreme Court announced that it would postpone the oral argument Ministry of Justice against the House of Representatives Committee for the Judicial AuthorityThe dispute over access to classified material from the Mueller investigation that was due to take place on December 2. The news came as part of orders issued by the special conference of judges on Friday. The judges also added two other issues, both of which relate to law enforcement officials’ scope of authority for research, to their argumentative assessment of the term.
The decision to postpone the oral hearing in the Mueller A. The request was submitted three days ago By the Judicial Committee in the House of Representatives. In Tuesday’s dossier, the committee told judges that once the new Congress and President-elect Joe Biden took office in January, it would “have to determine whether it wishes to continue” its efforts to obtain the materials – revised portions of the report provided by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the texts and classified materials. To the grand jury on which these parts are based.
In a one-paragraph response on Thursday, Acting Attorney General Geoffrey Wall indicated that the government had not objected to the commission’s request. Wall wrote that the government was “ready to move forward with the debate on December 2, 2020 as scheduled, but will proceed anyway to choose the court in light of the committee’s proposal.”
The two new cases that the court has agreed to review relate to disputes over police conduct. The Fourth Amendment usually requires police to obtain a search and seizure warrant. The Supreme Court has made several exceptions to this general rule, including an exception when the police perform the function of “caring for society” – activities that have nothing to do with fighting crime but focus instead on providing assistance. in a Caniglia vs. StromOn Friday, judges agreed to decide whether the exception applies to the homeowner.
The case arose after police officers went to Cranston, Rhode Island, the home of 68-year-old Edward Caniglia, when his wife requested a health examination. After a local firefighter persuaded Caniglia to go to the hospital, police officers – thinking “Canniglia and others could be in danger” – entered the house and took Caniglia’s rifles. Caniglia sued the city and police officers in federal court, arguing (among other things) that police officers entering his home and seizing weapons without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court ruled that the actions of police officers covered except for “community care,” and the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld this decision.
Caniglia went to the Supreme Court in August, where he argued that judges should hear his case because lower courts are “deeply divided” on the question of whether the “community welfare” exception applies to the home. He added that the decision of the first instance court was also wrong because the Supreme Court intended to apply the exception only to cars.
City officers and police responded that there was no conflict between lower courts, which looked at the “unique facts” of each case and “routinely” allowed officers to enter homes without a warrant in “harsh” conditions. Moreover, they added that the Supreme Court did not limit the exception to cars, and the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit police from entering homes to defuse potentially dangerous situations.
in a United States v. Cooley, Judges will decide whether a Native American police officer can detain and search a non-tribe member on a road into custody for potential violations of state or federal law. The question comes to court in the case of Joshua James Cole, who was parked in his pickup truck on the side of a road inside Crow Reservation in Montana when Officer James Saylor approached him from the Crow Tribe in the early hours of February. 26, 2016. Cooley was indicted on weapons and drug charges, but the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that weapons and drugs could not be used as evidence against him. The federal government has appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed on Friday to intervene.
The issues awarded on Friday will likely be discussed sometime early next year. Expect more requests from Friday’s conference on Monday 23rd November at 9:30 AM
This post was originally published on Howe in court.
The court flies the verbal argument in the dispute over Mueller’s materials and awards two new cases,
Scotus Blog (November 20, 2020, 2:15 pm), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/court-shelves-oral-argument-in-dispute-over-mueller-materials-grants-two -new -cases /