Last April, the United States Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), significantly limited the scope of a traffic stop. The officer in Rodriguez completed a traffic stop for driving on the shoulder of a highway after checking the vehicle registration and driver’s licenses of the driver and passenger, conducting a warrant check, returning all documents, and issuing the driver a warning ticket. The officer then asked the driver for consent to walk his drug dog around the vehicle, but the driver refused to give his consent. Nonetheless, the officer told the driver to turn off the ignition, leave the vehicle, and wait for a second officer. When the second officer arrived, the first officer walked his drug dog around the car, and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. A search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine. Seven to eight minutes had elapsed from the time the officer issued the written warning until the dog’s alert.
fourth circuit
New Service: Fourth Circuit Case Summaries
Semi-retired faculty member Bob Farb has begun a new service that may be of interest to some readers. He is summarizing select published Fourth Circuit opinions. Generally, he will focus on criminal cases and civil cases that have a criminal law connection. For example, his first summary concerns Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 4723803 (4th Cir. Sept. 24, 2014), a civil case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging in part that law enforcement officers intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence in a murder case.
Parent-Child Privilege
Must a parent testify against his or her child when called as a witness? Conversely, must a child testify against his or her parent? The answer depends on whether there is a parent-child privilege. No North Carolina case, statute, or rule. I couldn’t quickly find a North Carolina case or statute on point. So I … Read more
Fourth Circuit Declines to Take a Restrictive View of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing
I’ve previously discussed the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the confrontation clause in this blog (here) and in numerous other publications (for example, here). In a nutshell, the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception extinguishes confrontation claims on the equitable grounds that a person should not be able to benefit from his or her wrongdoing. Forfeiture by … Read more
Anonymous Juries
At the Oklahoma City bombing trial of Timothy McVeigh jurors’ names were kept private. So, too, in the corruption trials of former governors Edwin Edwards of Louisiana and Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. Likewise in the recent Chicago trial for the murder of Jennifer Hudson’s mother and other family members. And last year Maryland’s courts adopted … Read more
Back and Forth on Visual Estimates of Speed
Can an officer’s visual estimate of a vehicle’s speed, uncorroborated by radar, pacing, or other techniques, support a speeding stop? The Fourth Circuit has been whipsawing back and forth on that question recently. First, in United States v. Sowards, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 2386605 (4th Cir. June 26, 2012), a case I discussed here, … Read more
Visual Estimates of Speed and “Slight Speeding”
The Fourth Circuit recently decided United States v. Sowards, an interesting case about a traffic stop. The case arose when an experienced traffic enforcement officer stopped the defendant on I-77 near Charlotte. The basis for the stop was the officer’s visual estimate that the defendant was driving 75 m.p.h. in a 70 m.p.h. zone. During … Read more
4th Circuit Ruling: Child’s Statements to Social Worker Are Non-testimonial
The U.S. Supreme Court’s new Crawford confrontation clause rule has had significant impact in child victim prosecutions, largely because of problems with getting children to testify. One frequent Crawford question that arises in these cases is: Are a child’s statements to a social worker testimonial? In a paper here, I explore the testimonial analysis and … Read more
Stalking Statute Not Unconstitutionally Vague
The Fourth Circuit recently rejected a vagueness challenge to the federal stalking statute. Because of the similarity between the federal statute and North Carolina’s stalking law, I thought the decision was worth mentioning here. The federal stalking statute makes it a crime to “engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to … Read more