U.S. Supreme Court
558 U.S. ___
12/7/2009
Issue: Emergency Aid Exception to the Warrant Requirement.
Holding: Based on Brigham City v. Stuart, officers in this case had an objectively reasonable belief that someone was either seriously injured or immediately threatened with an injury, therefore it did not violate the defendant’s 4th amendment rights to enter his home without a warrant.
Virginia v. Harris (Writ of Certiorari Denied)
U.S. Supreme Court
130 S. Ct. 10
10/20/2009
This is a dissenting opinion of a U.S. Supreme Court’s decision denying a petition for writ of certiorari. This opinion is of interest for the following reasons: First, it is a reminder of the dangers posed by drunk drivers on a daily basis. Second, the decision reinforces the legal standard in Wisconsin, which allows officers to initiate a traffic stop based on a cell-phone caller reporting contemporaneous and verifiable observations of a possible drunk driver.
MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS, 129 S. Ct. 2527, (2009)
ARIZONA V. GANT, 129 S. Ct. 1710, (2009)
BRIGHAM CITY V. STUART, NO. 05-502, (2006)
ILLINOIS V. CABALLES, 125_S. Ct. 834, (2005)
UNITED STATES V. SPERBERG, 432 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2005)
CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)
HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV., HUMBOLDT CTY., 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
IOWA V. TOVAR, 541 U.S. 77 (2004)
LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT, 543 U.S. 1 (2004)
THORNTON V. UNITED STATES, 541 U.S. 615 (2004)
MARYLAND V. PRINGLE, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)
ARKANSAS V. SULLIVAN, 532 U.S. 769 (2001)
ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA, 532 U.S. 318 (2001)
DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
FLORIDA v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
ILLINOIS v. WARDLOW, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)
