The Volokh Conspiracy

Have you heard of the “14-Day Clause” of the Constitution? If not, you should take a look at the Supreme Court’s opinion today in Maryland v. Shatzer. Shatzer is an intriguing example of how the Supreme Court makes rules in the area of criminal procedure. It’s particularly notable in that it introduces a very rare (but not unprecedented) numerical rule to implement constitutional protections.

Shatzer is a case on the law of police interrogations when a suspect is in police custody. It’s one of the dozens of spinoff decisions from the 1966 blockbuster Miranda v. Arizona, also known as the “you have a right to remain silent” case. The specific question in Shatzer is whether a detained criminal suspect who has asked to speak with a lawyer can ever be questioned again without a lawyer present. In a 1981 case, Edwards v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that when a detained suspect asks to speak with a lawyer, the police cannot try to persuade him to change his mind. They have to stop the questioning, and they cannot restart the questioning, even after time passes and the suspect has met with his attorney, unless the suspect reinitiates the questioning on his own.

The issue in Shatzer was whether that rule continues to apply if the suspect has been released from police custody and is then rearrested. In particular, do the police have to honor the earlier request for a lawyer? The Miranda protections don’t apply when a suspect is no longer in custody. When the suspect is arrested again, however, he regains his Miranda rights. The question is, does the break in custody reset the clock on the effect of the suspect’s earlier request to speak with a lawyer? Or does the fact that the suspect is released from custody make no difference at all, such that the police are forever barred from approaching the suspect without a lawyer whenever he is in custody?

Two practical points make answering this question unusually hard. Point One is that the police need clear rules that answer the question with certainty. It doesn’t work to give the police complex legal tests to apply on the fly: They need clear rules to know what they can and cannot do. Point Two is that the two obvious candidates for clear rules each create absurd results. If you say that any break in custody, however short, resets the clock, then the protections are meaningless. If a suspect asks to speak to an attorney, the police will just “release” the suspect for 30 seconds, re-arrest him, and then restart the interrogation. That doesn’t work. On the other hand, if you say that the break in custody has no effect at all, then all sorts of strange consequences follow. A request to speak with an attorney in one case will inoculate the suspect from police interrogations for the rest of his life for all of his unrelated crimes. A request to speak to an attorney at the age of 18 in one case would bar questioning a half-century later for something entirely different. That doesn’t work, either.

So what to do? What clear rule on how long the break must be to reset the clock is workable here? Enter the 14-day rule, announced today in Shatzer in a majority opinion by Justice Scalia:

We think it appropriate to specify a period of time [at which time the clock is reset]. It seems to us that period is 14 days. That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody.

The 14-day limitation meets Shatzer’s concern that a break-in-custody rule lends itself to police abuse. He envisions that once a suspect invokes his Miranda right to counsel, the police will release the suspect briefly (to end the Edwards presumption) and then promptly bring him back into custody for reinterrogation. But once the suspect has been out of custody long enough (14 days) to eliminate its coercive effect, there will be nothing to gain by such gamesmanship—nothing, that is, except the entirely appropriate gain of being able to interrogate a suspect who has made a valid waiver of his Miranda rights.

As a matter of policy, I think that’s a pretty good rule. But why precisely 14 days? That is, 336 hours, or exactly 20,160 minutes? There is no 14-day Clause in the Constitution. (I checked.) Why not 15 days? Or 13.491 days?

As far as I can guess, the only reason 14 days was chosen is that it’s easy to remember and seemed in the right ballpark. Jews started measuring seven days as a time period in the 6th Century BC; the Romans then adopted it, measuring time in 7-day weeks; and two-thousand-odd years later, on February 24, 2010, a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court though that one of those was too short, three was too long, and two seemed about right. And how did the Justices know that 14 days would be about right? Based on their extensive experience being arrested, perhaps? Presumably not. But no matter. Fourteen days seemed about right, and so the 14-day rule became the law.

If you’re wondering how Justice Scalia could end up writing an opinion that sounds so legislative — picking 14 days out of thin air — you need to know Justice Scalia’s history with Miranda. Justice Scalia intensely dislikes the entire line of Miranda cases. The Court has sometimes referred to the Miranda rules as “prophylactic.” That is, they are rules created to protect the Constitution, and enforced as constitutional law, but not necessarily constitutional rules themselves. In his dissent in Dickerson v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that this entire approach was illegitimate. He would overthrow the entire line of cases as an illegitimate power grab. 

It’s not clear how many Justices continue to see Miranda as just “prophylactic” after Dickerson. But Justice Scalia still does. And he has long had a special dislike for the Edwards rule in particular. (Remember, that’s the rule that the police have to stop interviewing someone, and can’t restart questioning, if he asks for a lawyer.) In a 1990 dissent, Scalia described the Edwards line of cases as “prophylaxis built upon prophylaxis, producing a veritable fairyland castle of imagined constitutional restriction upon law enforcement.”

But if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Or at least join ‘em if that means you get to write the opinion that substantially limits the effect of the Edwards rule. And if you’re going to write an opinion that you see as merely “prophylactic,” presumably you’re not bound by your usual approach to constitutional interpretation. With apologies to Chief Justice Marshall, it is not a Constitution you are expounding. So explicitly policy-based rulemaking becomes more understandable, even if it’s jarring coming from Justice Scalia.

It’s still too early to have much of an idea what the Supreme Court might be doing in Harrington v. Richter, 09–587—but that won’t stop me from blathering about it anyway. The Court has relisted only twice, at the January 15 and 22 conferences, and it has not yet called for the record. But Richter is in some ways a stereotype of a summary reversal candidate: it’s from the Ninth Circuit (check), the opinion reverses a murder conviction on habeas (check), there’s a vigorous dissent from a conservative judge (Judge Jay Bybee, joined by Judges O’Scannlain, Kleinfeld, and Ikuta–check), and perhaps most importantly of all, the author of the majority opinion is liberal lion Judge Stephen Reinhardt (check).

It is often repeated that Judge Reinhardt has said of the Supreme Court, “They can’t catch ‘em all.”  Whether he said it or not, the Justices now act as if they must try. Thus, if you search “Reinhardt” just on this webpage, you get (among other entries) “Reinhardt Reversed in Buttons Case,” “Supreme Court Opens Term with Reinhardt Reversal,” “Reinhardt Reversed for Third Time in Same Case,” and the not-quite-as-snappily-titled “First Opinion in an Argued Case in OT08” (“the Court reversed a Ninth Circuit panel of Reinhardt, Betty Fletcher, and Dorothy Nelson”). Reading about these cases gives one an extreme form of déjà vu, more aptly described as Groundhog Day Syndrome.

There’s one thing about Harrington v. Richter that makes this case a bit more unusual as a summary reversal candidate: it’s a decision of the en banc court, or at least an en banc panel under the Ninth Circuit’s en-banc-lite procedure. But the evident importance that moved the Ninth Circuit to take the case en banc and the greater visibility and influence of such opinions makes it more likely the Supreme Court will conclude the case warrants review in some manner. And besides, summary reversal of an en banc Ninth Circuit decision is hardly unprecedented. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006); California v. Roy, 519 U.S. 2 (1996); INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139 (1981).

The case involves California’s prosecution of Joshua Richter and Christian Branscombe for murdering Patrick Klein and trying to kill Richter’s marijuana dealer, Joshua Johnson. The state claimed that Richter and Branscombe had shot Klein and Johnson while they were trying to steal Johnson’s gun safe; the defense claimed that Johnson had “freaked out” while high and accidentally shot Klein while trying to shoot Branscombe (for reasons that aren’t completely clear to me, although I guess you can’t demand clarity of someone who is, by hypothesis, freaking out). The evidence apparently jibed with Johnson’s stealing-my-gun-safe account. Believing that the case was sufficiently strong that they did not require more, the police, according to the majority, “did not pursue an in-depth forensic investigation” and did not immediately perform blood typing or spatter analysis nor attempt to discover whose blood had pooled in the bedroom doorway. After the trial began, the state performed a blood spatter analysis of the crime scene and tested some blood spattered above the pool, which the experts said indicated that Klein could not have been killed in the doorway (as Richter claimed) and that the spattered blood there was not Klein’s.

Richter and Branscombe were convicted. After his conviction became final, Richter’s federal habeas petition was rejected by the district court and a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit. But then the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc.

In a 39-page opinion that opens by quoting Sun Tzu’s The Art of War (“To . . . not prepare is the greatest of crimes; to be prepared beforehand for any contingency is the greatest of virtues”), Judge Reinhardt, joined by Chief Judge Kozinski and Judges Silverman, Wardlaw, Fisher, Paez, and Smith, held that defense counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient because he had not attempted to obtain forensic evidence to establish that the blood pool in the doorway was Klein’s. The “failure to consult any forensic expert constituted a threefold abrogation” of counsel’s duty to provide effective assistance by failing to investigate adequately before settling on a trial strategy, by failing to determine how the forensic evidence might assist the defense, and by failing to consult experts who could have assisted at trial. The majority held that the error was prejudicial, and the state court’s contrary conclusion was an objectively unreasonable application of the governing case, Strickland v. Washington. Experts obtained later had given affidavits saying that Johnson could not have been standing while bleeding in the doorway (as Johnson claimed) and that the experts “could not exclude the possibility” that the blood pool contained both Johnson and Klein’s blood.

In a 46-page dissent, Judge Bybee called the majority opinion “a model of the intrusive post-trial inquiry into attorney performance long rejected by the [Supreme] Court.” He argued that defense counsel’s decision not to pursue forensic evidence was reasonable given that even the state did not focus on it until mid-trial and because pursuing it “might well have resulted in the discovery of additional inculpatory evidence.” Accordingly, it was “perfectly reasonable” for defense counsel simply to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses as they came and not attempt to present affirmative forensic evidence. The dissenters said that the majority had “plainly enlarge[d] the constitutional duty of defense counsel to seek out and present expert testimony,” which was far more than the Supreme Court previously had required.

I repeat that it’s still too early to have much of an idea what the Court is doing with this case. It has only relisted twice, which isn’t that unusual, and the Court hasn’t called for the record. The Court could simply be taking a close look at the case, as befits it when an en banc court of appeals has vacated a murder conviction and a state has petitioned for certiorari. But a majority of the Supreme Court has a narrower view of effective assistance of counsel than the Ninth Circuit majority seemed to employ, as demonstrated in a summary reversal earlier this term in Bobby v. Van Hook, where the state didn’t even have the benefit of the tailwind which AEDPA gives it (see slip op. 3). And the Court has repeatedly summarily reversed in AEDPA cases to drive home that habeas relief is not to be granted unless a state court has unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

As the Supreme Court comes to the end of its nearly month-long recess, I thought it’d be good to review some of the cases the Court has relisted repeatedly in anticipation of what might be coming when the orders list is released Monday Feb. 22.   Time permitting–and that is a big “if”—this will be the first of what I hope will be several dull posts.

To begin with, it’s not entirely clear what cases the Court relisted at its January 22 conference, because it hasn’t updated the dockets of many cases that were on for that conference—the last entry still states that they’re on for conference January 22.  But because the Court has updated the dockets of cases in which cert was denied, it seems a safe bet that the other cases have been relisted (or are being held for another case).

First up is Thaler v. Haynes, 09–273, on cert to the Fifth Circuit (panel consisting of Jolly, Dennis, and Clement). This case was relisted at the 11/30, 12/4, 1/15, and (apparently) 1/22 conferences; on December 7, the Court called for the record, which arrived on December 31 and January 11. This case involves a convicted murderer’s challenge to the prosecution’s allegedly race-based use of peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). A different trial judge (who, respondent states, was cleaning two pistols on the bench at the time—the case is, after all, from Texas) handled the individual questioning of venire members, so the judge who did the group questioning and conducted the Batson hearing did not also observe the conduct that the prosecutor says precipitated the peremptory strikes.

The Fifth Circuit panel held that, because the judge who assessed the Batson challenge was not the same judge who had questioned the individual venire members, the Texas state courts were not able to perform the sort of factual inquiry Batson requires (which the panel throught includes considering the demeanor of both the rejected juror and the prosecution). Perhaps more significantly, the panel refused to grant the state court decision deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which requires that habeas relief not be granted unless the state court proceeding resulted in “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” The Fifth Circuit reasoned that, because the judge who presided over the Batson hearing had not observed the individual questioning of venire members, “we cannot * * * apply AEDPA deference to the state court, because the state courts engaged in pure appellate fact-finding for an issue that turns entirely on demeanor.”

The Court has observed that Batson “involves evaluating ‘the persuasiveness of the justification’ proffered by the prosecutor,” Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338 (2006), and there is language in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), and, to a lesser extent, Rice v. Collins, that the “best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the [peremptory] challenge,” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365 (plurality opinion of Kennedy, J.). The judge in question evidently concluded the strikes were not raced-based after observing the prosecutor’s demeanor in explaining the strikes, even if he did not also observe the witness’s demeanor. Texas SG Jim Ho argues that that is enough under Batson and that summary reversal is appropriate.  Texas asks the Court to clarify that language in Snyder v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 1203, 1208 (2008) (which Texas calls “dicta”) that “the trial court must evaluate * * * whether the juror’s demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed to the juror by the prosecutor” does not mean that a judge other than the original trial judge cannot adjudicate a Batson hearing.

It might be that someone is simply writing a dissent from denial of cert, although the fact that the Court called for the record suggests that the Court might be considering summary reversal; the Court certainly summarily reverses with some frequency in habeas cases because of the deferential standard of review required by AEDPA. If the Court goes the summary reversal route, I suspect it will do so by reasoning that the grounds of relief relied on by the Fifth Circuit were not yet clearly established in Supreme Court precedent, and there is no textual basis for failing to apply the forgiving AEDPA standard of review simply because the factfinder did not personally observe all the conduct.  I think the Supreme Court will be most interested in reversing the statement that state court decisions aren’t entitled to deference under AEDPA unless they’re based on firsthand assessment of demeanor. 

Time permitting, I hope to be back in the next couple of days to discuss Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 09–350 (relisted on 1/8/10, 1/15, and, apparently, 1/22), and Harrington v. Richter, 09–587 (relisted on 1/15 and, apparently, 1/22).

UPDATE: Today (Feb. 16) the Supreme Court finally updated its docket to reflect the January 22 relists.

Yesterday I expressed my concern about the decision to Mirandize the Christmas day bomber.  Today’s Wall Street Journal has this excellent editorial forcefully criticizing the Administration’s decision to do so.  Here’s an excerpt:

On “Fox News Sunday,” Chris Wallace asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs whether the President was told that Abdulmutallab was Mirandized after only 50 minutes of interrogation. Mr. Gibbs said the decision was made “by the Justice Department and the FBI” and insisted they got “valuable intelligence.”

This is awful. This talky terrorist should have been questioned for 50 hours, not 50 minutes. More pointedly, Abdulmutallab should not have been questioned by local G-men concerned principally with getting a conviction in court. He should have been interrogated by agents who know enough about the current state of al Qaeda to know what to ask, what names or locations to listen for, and what answers to follow up. The urgent matter is deterring future plots, not getting Abdulmutallab behind bars.

It gets worse. Appearing before Congress last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that the HIG group essentially doesn’t even exist yet. They haven’t pulled it together.

Recall that in August Mr. Obama announced the intention to create a multi-agency HIG, transferring lead responsibility for interrogations away from the CIA and into the FBI, with techniques limited to the Army Field Manual.

And worse. As a Wall Street Journal account of last week’s Senate Judiciary hearings noted, the HIG team is intended only for interrogations overseas; the Administration hasn’t decided whether to use it domestically. In any event, that’s moot until there is an HIG team.

As the facts are emerging, it appears that this was a mistake of the first order.  Abdulmutallab admitted he was from al Qaeda and was speaking “openly.”  But then he was given a break and given Miranda warnings, after which he apparently stopped giving useful information.

It is instructive to compare the solicitude for Abdulmutallab’s Miranda rights with this headline story  in today’s news:  “Report: Al-Qaeda Aims to Hit U.S. with WMDs:  Huge Attack is Top Strategic Goal, Not ‘Empty Rhetoric,’ Ex-CIA Official Says.”  Would Abdulmutallab have given us useful leads to pursue in stopping such an attack had he been questioned further rather than Mirandized?  Unfortunately, we will never know.

The Supreme Court released one opinion today — and it was not the eagerly anticipated Citizens United.  The Court released another habeas decision instead.  In Smith v. Spisak, a unanimous Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s grant of death-row inmate Frank Spisak’s habeas petition.  Justice Breyer wrote the opinion, and Justice Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

All nine justices agreed that even if Spisak’s trial counsel had been ineffective at the penalty phase, there was no reasonable probability that he was prejudiced by this fact.  The Court also held that the trial court’s mitigation jury instructions did not violate clearly established Federal law. Justice Stevens disagreed on this latter point, but nonetheless concluded Spisak was not entitled to relief because his conduct had so “alienated and ostracized the jury, and his crimes were monstrous” that there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome.

This is the second reversal of a Sixth Circuit decision granting a habeas petition this term.  (The first was Bobby v. Van Hook.)  Three more Sixth Circuit habeas cases remain, Renico v. Lett, Berghuis v. Thompkins, and Berghuis v. Smith.  Of note, all five cases involve the review of pro-defendant appellate decisions. 

I previously blogged on the Spisak case here.

[NOTE: As initially posted, I inadvertantly omitted one of the cases.]

This week, for the third time this term, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s handling of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a capital case with a per curiam opinion. In the first two cases, Bobby v. Van Hook (6th Circuit) and Wong v. Belmontes (9th Circuit), the Court vacated lower court decisions in favor of capital defendants.  In each case, the Court thought the appellate court had been too solicitous of the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  Yet this week in Porter v. McCollum (11th Circuit), the Court reversed a decision that had rejected the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  In all three case, the Court made its decision without oral argument (indeed, without the benefit of briefs beyond those from the cert petition stage).  Thus, it would appear the Court is quite unhappy with how appellate courts are handling ineffective assistance claims.

On Friday, in Johnson v. Sherry, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of William Johnson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case for additional proceedings to determine whether Johnson received inadequate assistance of counsel.  In his habeas petition, Johnson maintained that his representation had been constitutionally inadequate because his attorney failed to object to the temporary exclusion of the public from his murder trial.  Judge Clay delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Judge Cole.

Judge Kethledge dissented from the court’s judgment.  His dissenting opinion begins:

In defending a murder charge, it is a bad idea, I think, to leave the judge with a smoldering suspicion that your client had a role in killing two of the prosecution’s key witnesses before trial. A lawyer who minimizes that danger—by consenting to, rather than fighting, closure of the courtroom during the testimony of three surviving witnesses, out of a total of 18 testifying witnesses in the case—does not thereby render constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. That is all the more true, in my opinion, when there is not a shred of evidence that the closure had the slightest effect on the trial’s outcome.

The majority concludes otherwise. The majority suggests that the closure fight here was one worth having—indeed, that it was constitutionally mandated—its ethereal upside and concrete downside notwithstanding. The majority then sidesteps the absence of any actual prejudice resulting from Johnson’s consent to the closure—and with it, the plainly stated actual-prejudice requirement of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)—by holding that Johnson need not show any prejudice at all in support of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. That holding is not supported by “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), which means that we are without power to impose it on the Michigan state courts in this habeas case. I respectfully dissent.

It seems to me the majority’s opinion is a bit of a stretch, and Judge Kethledge has the better of the argument under existing law.  The Supreme Court has been anything-but-bashful in reviewing alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims of late.  (See, for instance, today’s per curiam opinion in Wong v. Belmontes and last week’s decision in Bobby v. Van Hook.) So, even though this is not a capital case, I would not be surprised were this case reversed en banc if not by the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court held, in Ballew v. Georgia, that the constitutional right to a jury trial requires a jury consisting of no fewer than six persons for non-petty offenses.  Does this standard apply in military courts-martial?  Not according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

This morning, the the D.C. Circuit rejected Kevin Sanford’s claim that his conviction by a military court-martial consisting of fewer than six persons violated his due process rights.  Judge Rogers opinion for the court summarizes the case as follows:

In challenging his conviction by a military court-martial consisting of less than six persons, Kevin Sanford invites this court to hold that his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment were violated. He relies
on the Supreme Court’s announcement of a constitutional minimum six-person jury for the trial of civilian, non-petty offenses in Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), and suggests it is the government’s burden to show that his due process rights were not violated. Because Ballew was grounded in the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, however, Sanford is actually seeking a new due process right to a court-martial panel of a minimum size. Sanford’s focus on rebutting the government’s assertions thus fails to engage the appropriate inquiry under Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994), which is “whether the factors militating in favor of [the proposed rule] are so extraordinarily weighty as to overcome the balance struck by Congress.” . . . Because Sanford failed to
engage this standard before the military courts, their resolution of his claim suffered from no fundamental defect and was properly upheld by the district court.

The Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding minimum jury size in the civilian system was based on empirical  studies.  . . . Sanford presented no similar empirical evidence regarding the military justice system, which
has features to ensure accurate fact finding not found in the civilian justice system. Rather, Sanford contends that Ballew reflects a conclusion about a fundamental right that is required by due process under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Still he fails to show that the empirical data underlying Ballew’s holding applies with equal force to the military justice system, which is based on Congress’ balancing of interests, some of which are unique to the military. Doubtless it is fundamental that there be accurate fact finding under the justice system Congress established in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, . . . but Sanford fails to show that the design of the military system is so incompatible with that principle as to violate due process.  Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of his complaint.

I haven’t blogged recently about the Ninth Circuit’s blockbuster computer search and seizure decision in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, although not because it hasn’t been on my mind: Among computer crime law folks, it’s topic #1 these days. Indeed, since the en banc decision was handed down, it seems that every conference and informal gathering in the field eventually morphs into trying to figure out what the majority was smoking opinion means, how judges should comply with it, how law enforcement should respond to it, and whether and how long it will be until it is overturned.

Closer to home, I had to make a quick decision whether to put the opinion into the 2nd edition of my computer crime law casebook, which is at the printers right now. I ended up deciding not to include it, as I think the odds favor it being overturned within a year or two. I figured it was better to include the opinion in a supplement in the meantime rather than include it in the main book, as you can easily take a case out of a supplement but not the book itself. 

But exactly how the case was going to be overturned is another matter. The most remarkable parts of the opinion are just lists of new rules, announced without any apparent authority or even a case or controversy. We don’t yet know if DOJ plans to file a cert petition in the case, although the procedural posture is tricky: DOJ could try to challenge some other aspect of the case and get that part scrapped in the process, but it’s hard to mount a direct challenge to what seems to be dicta. The main alternative for DOJ would be to let this case stand, let the system struggle with it for a few months or a year until there is a clear split, and then take the case to the Supreme Court. But that’s not a great option, as it means an intervening period when no one knows what the rules are for obtaining and executing search warrants for digital evidence.

In light of those somewhat awkward possibilities, I was intrigued to learn that the Ninth Circuit entered an order yesterday addressed to the parties in the case asking them to brief whether the case should be reheard by the full en banc court:

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
By November 25, 2009, the parties shall file simultaneous briefs addressing whether this case should be reheard en banc by the full court.

Now, wait, you’re wondering, wasn’t the case already heard by the full court? No, it wasn’t: The Ninth Circuit has so many active judges that its en banc panels consist of only about a third of its active judges. As Wikipedia explains:

In other circuits, en banc courts are composed of all active circuit judges, plus (depending on the rules of the particular court) any senior judges who took part in the original panel decision. By contrast, in the Ninth Circuit it is impractical for twenty-eight or more judges to take part in a single oral argument and deliberate on a decision en masse. The court thus provides for a “limited en banc” review of a randomly-selected 11 judge panel. This means that en banc reviews may not actually reflect the views of the majority of the court, and indeed may not include any of the three judges involved in the decision being reviewed in the first place.

But the Ninth Circuit’s rules provide for an en banc from the en banc – a super banc? – of all of the judges. As Judge Kozinski explained in 2003 testimony:

In the unlikely event that six judges might command a majority of an 11-judge en banc court and express a view inconsistent with the views of the other 21 active judges on the court, the circuit rules provide for review by the full court upon the request of any judge. This has never happened since the limited en banc rule was adopted by the Court in 1980.

Will Comprehensive Drug Testing be the first such case? On purely selfish grounds, a small part of me hopes not: As a public law scholar, you want your field to be red hot, and the initial en banc decision here is so way “out there” that it would help bring the field to the frontburner if it stays on the books. But from a less selfish perspective, it’s hard to think of a better case to take to the full court. The en banc decision dropped a bomb on the entire computer forensics world, without any briefing or even notice, and most of its rules are hard to square with relevant Supreme Court doctrine and/or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Plus, it’s difficult to figure out what the new rules really mean in practice, as they are written in such vague language that it’s hard to know what to make of it. The opinion has the agents, prosecutors, and magistrate judges all scratching their heads trying to figure out what to do. So I would think this is a very appropriate case to take super-en-banc. Stay tuned.

This Chicago Sun-Times article reports:

A Cook County judge today threw out an indictment against a Chicago Police officer accused of falsifying drunken driving arrests.

Judge James M. Obbish said prosecutors were wrong to rely on statements Officer John Haleas gave to police investigators during an internal investigation of his conduct.

Under union rules, such statements cannot be used against an officer in a criminal case, the judge said, ruling on a defense motion to dismiss the case....

I don’t have access to the judge’s opinion — if any of you can point me to it, I’d love to see it — but I highly doubt that union rules (even in Chicago) can affect the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials.

But the Supreme Court’s caselaw on the privilege against self-incrimination, and in particular Garrity v. New Jersey might well be doing the work here:

Appellants were police officers in certain New Jersey boroughs. The Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered that alleged irregularities in handling cases in the municipal courts of those boroughs be investigated by the Attorney General, invested him with broad powers of inquiry and investigation, and directed him to make a report to the court. The matters investigated concerned alleged fixing of traffic tickets.

Before being questioned, each appellant was warned (1) that anything he said might be used against him in any state criminal proceeding; (2) that he had the privilege to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate him; but (3) that if he refused to answer he would be subject to removal from office. 

Appellants answered the questions. No immunity was granted, as there is no immunity statute applicable in these circumstances. Over their objections, some of the answers given were used in subsequent prosecutions for conspiracy to obstruct the administration of the traffic laws. Appellants were convicted and their convictions were sustained over their protests that their statements were coerced, by reason of the fact that, if they refused to answer, they could lose their positions with the police department.... 

The choice given petitioners was either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves. The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in Miranda v. Arizona, is “likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice.” We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning and cannot be sustained as voluntary under our prior decisions....

Perhaps there are union contract provisions that reflect the Garrity principle. But the rule of exclusion of evidence would be set by Garrity or perhaps by any Illinois legal rules that might be based on Garrity, not by the union contract itself.

UPDATE: I forgot to make this clear at first: I think that the judge probably didn’t rely on union rules, but instead relied on Garrity or cases or statutes that flow from it.