As reported here at SCOTUSblog, late last week the Supreme Court "added five new cases, for a total of four hours of argument, to their docket for this term .... but this morning the justices added five more new cases, again for a total of four hours of argument, to their docket." Two of the grants involve criminal justice matters, and here are descriptions of those via SCOTUSblog:
In Torres v. Madrid, the justices will weigh in on what it means to be “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures. The case arose when Roxanne Torres dropped off a friend at the apartment complex where police in Albuquerque were attempting to serve an arrest warrant on a different person. When police approached her car, Torres — not realizing that they were police officers — believed that she was about to be the victim of a carjacking and drove her car forward. The officers shot her twice while she was still in her car; Torres managed to continue to drive away from the scene and was later treated at a hospital for her injuries. When Torres sued the officers for using excessive force, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit threw out her case. It ruled that Torres had not been “seized” because she continued to drive away after being shot, rather than being arrested. Torres asked the justices to review that ruling, which they agreed to do today....
And in Pereida v. Barr, the justices will decide whether a noncitizen who is convicted of a state crime can apply for relief from deportation — such as asylum or cancellation of removal — when the state-court record is ambiguous about whether his conviction corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The question arises in the case of Clemente Pereida, who was convicted in Nebraska of “attempted criminal impersonation,” a misdemeanor for which he was fined $100. The dispute centers on whether the conviction was a “crime of moral turpitude,” which would bar Pereida from applying for relief from deportation. The federal government agreed with Pereida that review should be granted, although it agrees with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit that Pereida is not eligible for relief from deportation.
Comments
Post a Comment