Here follows a summary of today’s two landmark decisions from the United States Supreme Court:
Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479
An 8-1 ruling found that Savana Redding’s 4th Amendment rights violated when, as a 13 year old 8th grade student, school officials strip searched her based on another student’s assertion she possessed prescription-strength ibuprofen. No pills were found in Redding’s backpack or undergarments.
Justice David Souter, author of the majority opinion, stated: “What was missing from the suspected facts….was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”
The lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials “considerable leeway” under the Fourth Amendment in school settings. “It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look,” Thomas said. “Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments, nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school.”
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 07-591
A 5-4 rule found criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports on illegal drugs and other evidence used at trial. Luis Melendez-Diaz challenged lab analysis confirming cocaine in plastic bags found in a car in which he was a passenger. Rather than accept the report, Melendez-Diaz said he should be allowed to question the lab analyst about testing methods, how the evidence was preserved, and other issues.
Massachusetts courts rejected his arguments, but Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the High Court, said he had a constitutional right to confront the lab analyst. Several more decisions are expected this Monday, so please stay tuned…
This entry was posted
on Thursday, June 25th, 2009 at 7:58 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
|
The state of Massachusetts is completely wrong to deny the Defendant the right to confront his accusers, the lab. Some people in labs do lie. They may do it to please their bosses, or to keep their jobs or because they got paid to lie or because they don’t like the Defendant, or for many other reasons.
The right to cross-examine is a Constitutional right and the person in the government of Massachusetts who authorized this lawsuit and the judge who failed to correct this should fired.
This is my personal opinion.