Petition this week

This week, we focused on the certificate petition requesting the Supreme Court to consider the Fourth Amendment regarding what constitutes an apartment “mansion” and whether a warrant is required for police officers to observe the phone notification screen; and the testimony provided by the nurse examiner on sexual assault The question of the adversarial clause and whether the defense lawyer has the right to cross-examine accomplices in exchange for how much benefit they will get for their testimony.

First, Sorenson v. Massachusetts A question that drives the core of the Fourth Amendment is raised: the right to safety at home. Although it is generally believed that this right includes the area adjacent to or related to the residence, called a mansion, but in the context of apartment buildings, it is not clear what a “mansion” is. In this case, Erich Sorenson was arrested without a warrant in front of his apartment. He claimed that if he lived in a house and was arrested on an open porch outside the door, the arrest would be unconstitutional. But the Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that the public corridors in the apartment building do not constitute a mansion. Sorenson asked the judge to conduct a review to clarify what could be considered an apartment residence.

Next, in Ohio v. Double, An undercover police officer pretended to be a 15-year-old girl online. An anonymous man contacted him. The man arranged to meet with her in a local park. At the agreed time and place for the meeting, investigators determined that Daniel Dubble was playing basketball and used his cell phone to observe him when the undercover police pretended to be a girl sending a message. The officials then detained Deuble and confiscated his mobile phone. The police officer sent another message, and a notification appeared on Deuble’s phone confirming that he was the person communicating with the undercover police officer.The court of first instance found sufficient probable reasons for the detention, but the Ohio Court of Appeals overturned the original verdict and considered the probable reasons until Rear Deuble’s phone has been “searched”. The court held that according to the Supreme Court’s determination, Deuble had privacy expectations on the notification screen of his mobile phone. Riley v. CaliforniaOhio argued that such a ruling was clearly wrong and asked the court to clarify whether it insisted Riley To request the police officer to show a search warrant, simply observe the notification screen of the locked phone.

The other two petitions deal with the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which provides for the right to cross-examine unfavorable witnesses. Over the past few decades, the number of nurses certified to collect evidence of sexual assault and testify for prosecution in court proceedings has increased dramatically.in Burke v. Washington, Ronald Burke was convicted of sexual assault, partly because the sexual assault nurse examiner provided the statement she received from the victim during the examination. The victim was dead at the time of trial, so he could not testify. Burke was convicted by the jury, but the Washington Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, arguing that these statements were probative and admitting that they were wrong. The Washington Supreme Court again overturned the original verdict, this time holding that all statements except one statement are “non-provencial” because the main purpose of the interaction is to obtain medical services, although it recognizes that the jurisdiction exists on this issue Disagreement. The only statement identified as testimony was one that listed Burke as the assailant; however, since DNA evidence confirmed Burke’s identity, it was admitted that this statement was a harmless error. Burke sought review by the court, arguing that the sexual assault nurse inspector was a “law enforcement subsidiary” and therefore accepting testimony about the victim’s statement during the forensic sexual assault examination violated the adversarial clause.

Finally, in Campbell v. United States, Judges are required to consider the scope of the adversarial clause in the context of providing rewards for accomplices to testify. Alston Campbell was convicted of drug offenses, based in part on the testimony of four suspected accomplices. The four accomplices signed a plea agreement and agreed to provide testimony in exchange for avoiding mandatory minimum penalties for related crimes. Campbell’s lawyers were not allowed to cross-examine the extent of rewards for accomplices to testify for the government. Campbell argued that accomplices are rewarded for helping in more than 10,000 cases each year. This prohibition of cross-examination limits the defendant’s ability to expose prejudices that may determine guilt or innocence. He asked the judge to conduct a review to clarify the scope of restrictions that the court of first instance can cross-examine accomplices.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

Sorenson v. Massachusetts
20-1747
problem: In private multi-family houses that are not open to the public, whether the corridor area adjacent to the apartment is part of the mansion for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment.

Ohio v. Double
20-1784
problem: (1) Whether there are reasonable grounds for detaining a person suspected of soliciting sexual acts from law enforcement officials through social media applications under the Fourth Amendment, and the identity of the person is verified by the person’s behavior. Here, the suspect agreed to meet with law enforcement officials who pretended to be minors for sexual activity, and was the only person who was observed using a mobile phone at the agreed meeting place, because law enforcement officials who pretended to be minors sent messages to the suspect through social networks information. Media applications; (2) Whether the content of the mobile phone was searched for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement officials did not access the content of the mobile phone with certainty.

New York City v. Frost
20-1788
problem: Whether, where Question 1983 The plaintiff claimed that his pre-trial detention was affected by forged evidence and that the existence of possible causes independent of the questioned evidence failed his Fourth Amendment claim. He can still obtain justification based on the claim to use the same questioned evidence The procedure advocates the same pretrial detention.

Campbell v. United States
20-1790
problem: (1) The court of first instance prohibits cross-examination of accomplice witnesses, hoping to cooperate with the government in exchange for sentencing benefits, whether it violates the rights of the defendant under the “Confrontation Clause”; (2) Whether the Court of Appeal should re-examine the violation of the confrontation clause or Abuse of discretion.

Burke v. Washington
20-8312
problem: Whether or not the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause prohibits sexual assault nurse inspectors who are unable to testify in the trial and have not previously been cross-examined by adult sexual assault complainants who testify during the forensic examination.