It’s the first Monday in October, which means that the Supreme Court gets back to business after its summer recess. Among the criminal cases the Court will consider this Term are the following: Missouri v. McNeely. As noted in Friday’s News Roundup, this case asks “[w]hether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.” Shea highlighted this case, and the split of authority on the issue presented, in this prior post. Obviously, this is a big deal for folks involved in DWI cases. Bailey v. United States, which presents a question I’ve been asked before: “Whether, pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), police officers may detain an individual incident to the execution of a search warrant when the individual has left the immediate vicinity of the premises before the warrant is executed.” (In Bailey, the defendant left the premises by car and was a mile away when he was stopped and detained.) Chaidez v. United States, which asks whether Padilla v. Kentucky, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (holding that inaccurate advice concerning the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel), applies retroactively to cases that have become final. Remember that the North Carolina Court of Appeals answered that question in the negative in State v. Alshaif, discussed here. Florida v. Harris, [...]
Faculty Coordinators
