Session Date: August 16, 2005
Annual Meeting Session Summary: Supreme Court Update
This summary is provided for information purposes only. NCSL does not endorse any views it contains.
SEATTLE - Richard Ruda, chief counsel at the State and Local Legal Center in Washington, D.C. outlined United States Supreme Court decisions that hold significance for state legislatures during the National Conference of State Legislatures' 2005 Annual Meeting.
The discussion focused on Supreme Court holdings in cases decided during this past term, involving law enforcement and Fourth Amendment rights, eminent domain, and Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Ruda highlighted Devenpeck v. Alford, 125 S.Ct. 588, in which the issue was whether an arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which there is probable cause is not "closely related" to the offense stated by the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.
In this case, the plaintiff, Alford, was arrested by Washington State Patrol officers for violating the Washington state's Privacy Act, because he was tape recording his conversation and questioning by Sgt. Devenpeck, who believed he had probable cause. There was, however, probable cause at the time of the arrest to detain Alford for both impersonating a police officer and obstructing a police investigation.
The Ninth Circuit held that Alford's arrest was unreasonable because the Privacy Act violation was not "closely related" to either of the offenses for which he could have been charged. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and declined to adopt the "closely related offense" doctrine. The Court noted that applying such a rule would encourage officers to cease identifying any reasons for arrest, which are not constitutionally required, and officers could "stack" charges by identifying every conceivable charge that observable facts would support.
Mr. Ruda also discussed Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655, regarding a city's decision to take property for the purpose of economic development and whether that decision satisifies the public use requirement of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. Ruda noted that the holding by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision, that the city had properly used eminent domain, was very solidly supported by case law.
"Justice Stevens, in his majority opinion, eloquently stated that the power of eminent domain rests in state legislatures, and the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to tell anyone how to use it," Ruda said. "Some states have decided not to allow its use for economic development and that's fine. It's not up to the Court to determine if economic development is a valid use of eminent domain. Only the state legislature can determine that."
Finally, Ruda concluded his presentation by discussing Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195, in which the issue was whether Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce extends to making the local cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes a federal crime.
In the Supreme Court decision, the Court acknowledged the "respondents' strong arguments that they would suffer irreparable harm because marijuana does have valid therapeutic uses" and has been a vital part of the treatment of chronic illnesses. However, the question before the Court was not whether it should enforce the Controlled Substances Act, but whether Congress has the power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances in those markets that are supplied with drugs that are produced and grown locally. The Court upheld the application of the Controlled Substances Act, but noted that Congress has the authority to change the Court's decision through legislation, in which the "voices of the voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
NCSL is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories. It provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system.
### |
