Law Commons^™

The Quantum Of Suspicion Needed For An Exigent Circumstances Search, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

For decades, the United States Supreme Court opinions articulating the standard of exigency necessary to trigger the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement have been maddeningly opaque and confusing. Some cases require probable cause, others call for reasonable suspicion, and still others use undefined and unhelpful terms such as "reasonable to believe" in describing how exigent the situation must be to permit the police to proceed without a warrant. Nor surprisingly, the conflicting signals coming from the Supreme Court have led to disagreement in the lower courts.

To resolve this conflict and provide guidance to law enforcement …

Heien'S Mistake Of Law, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

The Supreme Court has been whittling away at the Fourth Amendment for decades. The Court's 2014 ruling in Heien v. North Carolina allowing the police to make a traffic stop based on a reasonable mistake of law generated little controversy among the Justices and escaped largely unnoticed by the press-perhaps because yet another Supreme Court decision reading the Fourth Amendment narrowly is not especially noteworthy or because the opinion's cursory and overly simplistic analysis equating law enforcement's reasonable mistakes of fact and law minimized the significance of the Court's decision. But the temptation to dismiss Heien as just another small …

The Supreme Court's Quiet Expansion Of Qualified Immunity, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

This Essay discusses the Supreme Court’s tendency in recent opinions to covertly expand the reach of the qualified immunity defense available to public officials in § 1983 civil rights suits. In particular, the Essay points out that the Court, often in per curiam rulings, has described qualified immunity in increasingly broad terms and has qualified and retreated from its precedents, without offering any explanation or even acknowledging that it is deviating from past practice.In making this claim, I focus on three specific issues: the manner in which the Court characterizes the standard governing the qualified immunity defense; the question whether …

Supervisory Liability In Section 1983 Cases, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

The topic of this presentation is supervisory liability in Section 1983 cases. Assume for present purposes that a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated - that some state official has acted in violation of the Constitution. The question to be addressed here is whether that state official's supervisors can be held liable for damages stemming from the constitutional violation.

The Buck Does Not Stop Here: Supervisory Liability In Section 1983 Cases, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

The appropriate standard for supervisory liability in Section 1983 cases has been a source of considerable disagreement among federal courts of appeals. In the absence of established Supreme Court authority on the subject, courts have rejected vicarious and negligence liability in favor of a higher culpability requirement, but they have not agreed on precisely what form this higher standard should take. In this article, the Author addresses the need for a uniform standard consistent with the statute's twin goals of compensating the victims of constitutional violations and deterring constitutional infractions.

The author notes at the outset that lower courts have …

Qualified Immunity In Section 1983 Cases: The Unanswered Questions, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

Part I of this Article describes the general policies underlying qualified immunity and the Court's decisions defining the scope of the defense. Part II then addresses two answered questions concerning Harlow v. Fitzgerald's impact on the substantive content of the qualified immunity defense: Is immunity available to the defendant who actually knows that her conduct is infringing the plaintiff's constitutional rights, even if the law governing those rights is not yet clearly established? And should a court take into account the nature of the defendant's governmental responsibilities and other circumstances surrounding her conduct in determining whether the right she violated …

Justice Blackmun's Mark On Criminal Law And Procedure, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

When Justice Blackmun was nominated to the Court in 1970, Americans were consumed with the idea of crime control. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon had called the Supreme Court "soft on crime" and had promised to "put 'law and order' judges on the Court." While sitting on the Eighth Circuit, the Justice had "seldom struck down searches, seizures, arrests or confessions," and most of his opinions in criminal cases had "affirmed guilty verdicts and sentences." Thus, according to one commentator, Justice Blackmun seemed to be "exactly what Nixon was looking for: a judge who believed in judicial restraint, …

Iqbal And Supervisory Immunity, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the federal courts generally acknowledged that high-ranking government officials could be held liable for the constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates, though they differed on the appropriate standard of supervisory liability. In Iqbal, the Supreme Court called this case law into question, holding that constitutional tort liability hinges on proof that each defendant, “through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” The Court’s cursory treatment of this issue, without the benefit of briefing or oral argument, was based entirely on the misguided assumption that the doctrine of …

Habeas Corpus, Qualified Immunity, And Crystal Balls: Predicting The Course Of Constitutional Law, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

After describing the basic legal and policy issues surrounding the qualified immunity defense and the use of novelty to explain procedural defaults in habeas cases, Part I of this article advocates a standard for both types of cases that asks whether a person exercising reasonable diligence in the same circumstances would have been aware of the relevant constitutional principles. With this standard in mind, Part II examines the qualified immunity defense in detail, concluding that in many cases public officials are given immunity even though they unreasonably failed to recognize the constitutional implications of their conduct. Part III compares the …

Implied Wavier After Seminole Tribe, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

Part I of this Article briefly traces the history of the Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence, focusing in particular on the opinions developing the doctrines of implied waiver and abrogation. Part II makes the case that the doctrine of implied waiver retains validity after Seminole Tribe, at least with respect to federal statutes passed pursuant to the Spending Clause that condition the receipt of federal funds on the states' waiver of the Eleventh Amendment and statutes passed under Congress's other Article I powers that regulate an activity voluntarily undertaken by the states. Finally, Part III considers other potential constitutional …