PDA

View Full Version : Millender a loss for 2a


dantodd
02-22-2012, 11:13 PM
CJ Roberts wrote the majority opinion that Milender cannot sue the police officers who took her gun when searching her home for a foster son and any guns he might possess. The majority further said that the search for and confiscation of any and all guns is likely legal. (this is dicta as the validity of the warrant wasn't at issue in the case.)

The only 2 justices who voted that such a warrant was overbroad and violated Millender's 2A rights were Sotomayor and Ginsberg. Kagan said it was fine wrt guns but looking for items indicating gang membership was overbroad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/us/officers-who-searched-home-cant-be-sued-court-says.html

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-704.pdf

press1280
02-23-2012, 12:28 AM
Not sure it's so much a 2A loss as a 4th Amendment one. Millender didn't claim a 2A violation AFAIK.

axel4488
02-23-2012, 12:40 AM
Since when does Sotomayer have common sense and adhered to the constitution?

jigenax
02-23-2012, 12:50 AM
Since when does Sotomayer have common sense and adhered to the constitution?

*Looking for flying pigs* :piggy:

Wrangler John
02-23-2012, 12:52 AM
Since when does Sotomayer have common sense and adhered to the constitution?

Old Buddhist saying: Even monkey fall out of tree sometime."

Window_Seat
02-23-2012, 1:31 AM
Some politicians wear flip flops, and Judges are not immune from that desire, but those (in my opinion) are the best kind. HST, I need to read the opinion.

Erik.

edwardm
02-23-2012, 4:05 AM
Second time I've been surprised by Sotomayor in the last 2 months. Not getting my hopes up - knowing she's in the minority, she may be looking at these things as throw-aways.

SanPedroShooter
02-23-2012, 5:11 AM
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, issued a heated dissent. In response to the chief justice’s conclusion that the officers’ conduct had been “objectively reasonable,” she wrote, “I could not disagree more.”

“It bears repeating that the founders adopted the Fourth Amendment to protect against searches for evidence of unspecified crimes,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “And merely possessing other firearms is not a crime at all.” She cited District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision finding a Second Amendment right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

Justice Sotomayor added that she was not persuaded by the fact that the officers’ superiors and a judge had approved the warrant. “Under the majority’s test,” she wrote, “four wrongs apparently make a right.”

Wait, what?

And is any one else curious as to why a guy like Bowen was not in prison or at the bottom of a hole somewhere?


"Bowen’s “rapsheet” spanned over 17 printed pages, and indicated that he had been arrested at least 31 times. Nine of these arrests were for firearms offenses and six were for violent crimes, including three arrests for assault with a deadly weapon."

31 strikes and your out....side, free to assault and shoot at your girlfriend with an NFA weapon in an attempt to keep her from snitching on you.

htjyang
02-23-2012, 3:21 PM
This seems like the time for me to point out that I predicted this outcome back in July of last year. Let me quote myself (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=453432):

I'm betting on at least a 6-3 in favor of reversal....

I'm uncertain as to the issues of police immunity. What I do know is:

i. There are good reasons for police immunity.
ii. There is no majority on the Court to change longstanding jurisprudence on this issue.

In that previous thread, I already warned that this case is a loser and that litigating a loser all the way to the Supreme Court will only result in a precedent affirming police immunity. While the Court's opinion on the search itself is dicta, it is dicta agreed to by 6 justices. I'm quite certain this dicta will be quoted by the lower courts for some time to come.

It seems to me that such suits are more powered by some vague grievance against the police rather than serious legal arguments. Until some serious arguments can be found, such litigants should expect to lose, and lose, and lose, and lose, and lose, and....

I also need to remind people yet again that the Court that decided Miranda v. Arizona died and was buried a long time ago. This is not the Warren Court. This is the Roberts Court. People should stop living in the past and deal with the present.

robcoe
02-23-2012, 3:49 PM
i. There are good reasons for police immunity.


Cite them please, cause I can't think of a single one.

htjyang
02-23-2012, 4:02 PM
Cite them please, cause I can't think of a single one.

The concern here is that without immunity, every criminal who got a scrape during an arrest will be hiring an ambulance-chasing lawyer and flood the system with law suits. Then the system will be forced to respond by taking the officers off duty which in turn will increase the threat to public safety. Not to mention spend an enormous amount of time and money defending itself from the torrent of frivolous law suits.

robcoe
02-23-2012, 4:39 PM
The concern here is that without immunity, every criminal who got a scrape during an arrest will be hiring an ambulance-chasing lawyer and flood the system with law suits. Then the system will be forced to respond by taking the officers off duty which in turn will increase the threat to public safety. Not to mention spend an enormous amount of time and money defending itself from the torrent of frivolous law suits.

They can do that right now, they just sue the department instead of the individual.

All immunity does is let bad cops get away with abusing their position by shifting the consequences away from the individual onto the backs of the taxpayers.

Knuckle Dragger
02-23-2012, 4:40 PM
Since when does Sotomayer have common sense and adhered to the constitution?

And there you have the apparent paradox. Justices like Sotomayer and Ginsberg may not be in agreement with us on the meaning of the Second Amendment, but they are frequently the best guardians of other, non-2A, civil rights.

htjyang
02-23-2012, 5:30 PM
They can do that right now, they just sue the department instead of the individual.

Hardly the same thing. As you said, this way, the burden is shifted to the department as a whole. Individual police officers won't have to face nearly the same amount of legal and financial pressure.

proclone1
02-23-2012, 5:52 PM
Since when does Sotomayer have common sense and adhered to the constitution?

She probably saw the way things were gonna be, thought "hey here's some free brownie points" and voted just for the record despite her beliefs.

BigDogatPlay
02-24-2012, 3:45 PM
Since when does Sotomayer have common sense and adhered to the constitution?

Since it seems at it's core to be a 4A case and the majority was broadening police powers, I'm surprised that Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg were not way more fiery in their dissent.

If it were a pure 2A case it's hard to imagine them not being on the other side and saying that the police needed more power to take away eeeeee-vil guns.

ETA... leafing through the decision it's interesting to see Justice Breyer going along the majority. The brevity of his concurrance makes me wonder why he bothered.