CMRJ601 case 2

Case Brief 2

Instructions

Case law often takes time. The actions of those in the field occur in seconds and those on the bench may take days, weeks, months, even years, analyzing and forming an opinion of that action. You should expect to spend a great deal of time reviewing, often multiple times, a court decision. As judges often have a great deal of time when writing decisions, as opposed to those in the field who must often must rely instinctively and on past training to take immediate action, judicial opinions are often long and drawn out. While the length and volume may pose a hurdle, generally the writing style poses a greater hurdle. This style is often very subtle and complicated as key words, phrases, or points are frequently glanced over on a first reading. It is up to you identify the core of the controversy and accurately identify the court’s ruling. This involves summarizing and condensing in  brief and  concise form the nature of the issue at hand, the judicial opinion, and the ruling (Krislov, 1972).

 

Weeks 3, 5 and 8, you will be required to submit a case brief of the assigned case. Each brief represents your analysis of the assigned case. Each brief is worth 16% of your overall grade in the course. Grades for these papers will reflect a combination of form, logic, flow, grammar, spelling, APA format, and demonstrated understanding of principles. These case briefs of 4-6 [double spaced] pages each, when completed, should help your develop your critical thinking/analysis skills. These must be submitted during the week assigned.  Late papers will result in the automatic loss of a letter grade.

 

A very good reference, entitled  How to Brief a Case, addressing the pertinent content of a brief  but not the form or sequence to be used in this class can be found on the  John Jay College website.

 

Utilize the Brief Template format provided. All attachments must be submitted in Word format. No other formats are accepted as all faculty may not be able open the attachment and thus not be able to grade it. If you see a numerical score of “1” for the brief, this indicates the faculty member was unable to open your attachment and you must resubmit your work in Word format for a grade. Your work is considered late and late penalties apply until your work is submitted in the proper format to faculty.

Krislov, S. (1972)  Judicial process and constitutional law. Little Brown & Co.

 

For this assignment you must submit your brief as a Word document. 

Papers will be graded based on the Criminal Justice Paper Rubric found in your course site. Your assigned case is this week's reading:

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) Retrieved from  https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-1425

· Cases

· Justices

· Media

· Newsletters

NEW: Brown Revisited

Missouri  v. McNeely

Media

· Oral Argument - January 09, 2013

· Opinion Announcement - April 17, 2013

Opinions

· Syllabus

· Opinion of the Court (Sotomayor)

· Concurring opinion (Kennedy)

· Concurring opinion (Roberts)

· Dissenting opinion (Thomas)

Petitioner

Missouri

Respondent

Tyler G. McNeely

Location

Cape Girardeau

Docket no.

11-1425

Decided by

Roberts Court

Lower court

Supreme Court of Missouri

Citation

569 US 141 (2013)

Granted

Sep 25, 2012

Argued

Jan 9, 2013

Decided

Apr 17, 2013

Advocates

John N. Koester, Jr. for the petitioner

Nicole A. Saharsky Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner

Steven R. Shapiro for the respondent

Facts of the case

On October 3, 2010, Missouri state police officer Mark Winder saw Tyler McNeely driving above the speed limit. When Winder followed McNeely to pull him over, he saw McNeely cross the center line three times. Upon making contact with McNeely, Wilder observed that his eyes were red and glassy, and that his breath smelled like alcohol. McNeely performed poorly on four field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a portable breath test. Wilder arrested McNeely for driving while intoxicated and transported him to a hospital to obtain a blood sample. Wilder read McNeely the Missouri Implied Consent statement, and McNeely still refused to submit the sample. Wilder ordered the sample taken anyway, and the blood test revealed McNeely's blood alcohol level was far above the legal limit.

The state charged McNeely with driving while intoxicated, and McNeely moved to suppress the evidence of the blood sample because it was obtained without a warrant. The trial court granted the defendant's motion. The state appealed and argued that the risk of McNeely's blood alcohol level decreasing over time represented an exigent circumstance requiring a blood draw. The Missouri Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred, but that the case represented a departure from current case law; it transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court's decision.

Question

Does the Fourth Amendment prevent the taking of a warrantless blood sample under exigent circumstances?

Conclusion

Sort:  

· by seniority 

· by ideology

· 5–4 decision for McNeely plurality opinion by Sonia Sotomayor

The natural metabolization of alcohol does not present a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement.

Roberts

Scalia

Kennedy

Thomas

Ginsburg

Breyer

Alito

Sotomayor

Kagan

Yes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 5-4 plurality. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches applies to blood alcohol tests unless specific exigent circumstances exist. Because each case must be considered based on its individual facts, there are cases in which the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood would be considered an exigent circumstance, but there is no reason to create a categorical rule. The Court also held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against bodily intrusions outweighs the state’s interest in gaining evidence quickly.

In his partial concurrence, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the case in question does not provide the basis for any categorical rule on the issue of conducting a blood alcohol test without a warrant. He also wrote that the Fourth Amendment does not allow the warrant requirement to be entirely ignored in drunk driving arrests. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which he argued that there must be a categorical rule on this issue to provide appropriate guidance to law enforcement officials. He argued that exigent circumstances exist and justify a warrantless blood test if the officer believes there is not sufficient time to obtain a warrant before critical evidence is lost through natural metabolic processes. If there is time to secure a warrant, the officer must do so. Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in the partial concurrence and partial dissent.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the body’s natural metabolization of alcohol constitutes the destruction of evidence and represents an exigent circumstance. The importance of obtaining evidence allows the police to conduct a warrantless blood alcohol test without violating the Fourth Amendment.

Learn more about the Roberts Court and the Fourth Amendment in  Shifting Scales , a nonpartisan Oyez resource.

image2.png

image3.png

image4.png

image5.png

image6.png

image7.png

image8.png

image9.png

image10.png

image1.png