Rejects argument that “the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases,” and holds instead “that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.”
SCOTUS
Florida v. Jardines, No. 11–564, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 26, 2013).
Police using a drug dog at a home’s front door was a Fourth Amendment search.
Florida v. Harris, No. 11–817, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 19, 2013).
To determine if there is probable cause based on a drug dog alert, this decision establishes the Fourth Amendment analysis for when “a sniff is up to snuff.”
Bailey v. United States, No. 11–770, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 19, 2013).
The Fourth Amendment rule allowing occupants of premises to be temporarily seized while a warrant is executed is limited to persons “in the immediate vicinity” of the premises to be searched.
Chaidez v. United States, No. 11–820, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 20, 2013).
The Padilla v. Kentucky Sixth Amendment holding, requiring defense counsel to advise of risk of deportation entailed in a guilty plea, does not have retroactive application to convictions which became final prior to Padilla’s decision date (which was March 31, 2010).