Criminal Justice Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 Term

• Published date: 01 December 2006
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016806296264
• Date: 01 December 2006
• Subject Matter: Articles

406

Recent Legal Developments

Criminal Justice Decisions of the

Supreme Court of the United States,

2005 Term

James L. Maddex Jr.

Georgia State University, Atlanta

Among the mainline criminal justice issues that were addressed by the Supreme Court

during its 2005 term were warrantless consent searches and a further exploration of

the “knock and announce” aspect of the execution of search warrants. Fair trial and related

issues were at the heart of several cases. The Court addressed the scope of a nonindigent

criminal defendant’s right to be represented by the attorney of his or her choice, and, in

another case, it considered the scope of the right of the accused to confront the source of

statements that were introduced at trial by the prosecution. Two decisions dealt with the

affirmative defenses of duress and insanity. The harmless error doctrine’s application to

judicial overreaching in noncapital sentencing was explored in one case. Three others

addressed capital sentencing issues, and in another case the Court held that a death row

inmate should be permitted to pursue a civil rights action to challenge a state’s method of

administering lethal injection. The past decade has presented the Court with ample oppor-

tunities to interpret provisions of two congressional efforts in 1996 to curtail the volume of

postconviction litigation, and there were several such decisions last term. A case that arose

in the correctional setting put prison officials on notice that inmates whose functional dis-

abilities were ignored would have access to an important statutory remedy.

There was a decision that addressed the First Amendment protections of a prosecutorial

agency employee who claimed that he had suffered retaliation after criticizing the actions

of other criminal justice personnel. In another case, the Court disapproved of Attorney

General Alberto Gonzales’s reliance on the federal Controlled Substances Act to prevent

the practice of physician-assisted suicide nationwide. Operators and clients of abortion

clinics suffered a setback when the Court held that they could not use key federal statutes

to seek recompense for or protection from the violent actions of protesters. On June 29,

2006, the last day of the term on which decisions were announced, the Court once again

reminded the executive branch that it did not have unlimited procedural options for bring-

ing suspected terrorists to justice, even if they were aliens.

The 2005 term of the Supreme Court produced 69 cases in which there was a signed

majority or plurality opinion, of which 30 are summarized here because they have at least

some relevance to the field of criminal justice. Citations, including quoted passages, are

referenced to the Supreme Court Reporter alone. Statutory citations appear only at the

appropriate point in the text.

Criminal Justice Review

Volume 31 Number 4

December 2006 406-429

© 2006 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

10.1177/0734016806296264

http://cjr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Maddex / 2005 Supreme Court Term Criminal Justice Decisions 407

The Fourth Amendment

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

Justice Scalia began the majority opinion in this closely divided case by acknowledging

the well-established common law principle, reaffirmed in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) and its

progeny, that before entering a residence to execute a warrant, “law enforcement officers

must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door” (126

S.Ct. at 2162). The “knock-and-announce rule” has also been found to have several excep-

tions that the Supreme Court has held reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, such as

when there is a need to enter quickly to head off an anticipated violent response or to pre-

vent the destruction of evidence. The issue in the present case centered on the remedial con-

sequences of a police entry that the state conceded did not comply with legal standards that

govern the knock-and-announce rule. The officers waited only 3 to 5 seconds after announc-

ing their presence before they entered Hudson’s residence. The warrant that they were

executing did not contain a “no-knock” provision, nor did the officers claim that exigent

circumstances justified a quick entry. The ensuing search revealed cocaine and a loaded

gun, and Hudson was subsequently convicted on a drug possession charge.

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the decision of the Michigan Supreme

Court that, notwithstanding the Fourth Amendment violation committed by the officers’ entry,

the exclusionary rule would not apply to the seized evidence. Justice Scalia’s majority opin-

ion traced the evolution of the judicially promulgated exclusionary rule, emphasizing its costs

and the many exceptions that had been fashioned by the Court throughout the rule’s history

in American justice. He also called attention to the increased availability of other remedies for

violations of Fourth Amendment rights, including civil rights suits and administrative sanc-

tions against offending police officers. Justice Scalia found that there existed ample theories,

such as inevitable discovery and attenuation, to support the Court’s decision not to apply the

remedy of exclusion to knock-and-announce violations such as occurred here. He noted that

the interests to be protected by the knock-and-announce policy were centered on protecting

privacy and dignity in one’s home, but they did not preclude seizure of evidence by police

when they were executing a valid warrant. The final portion of Justice Scalia’s opinion was

joined by only three other justices. Here, he attempted to square the result in the present case

with the other recent Supreme Court knock-and-announce decisions.

Justice Breyer wrote for the four dissenting justices. Among his contentions was that the

Court’s decision had no support in precedent (in an appendix, he catalogued 41 cases that

reached a contrary result) and that the decision would undermine the practical value of the

knock-and-announce rule by destroying the strongest incentive to comply with it. The dis-

sent noted that in spite of the large number of knock-and-announce violations that had been

documented, there had been few significant victories by complaining parties who brought

civil actions, notwithstanding Justice Scalia’s confidence in the viability of remedies other

than exclusion.

United States v. Grubbs (2006)

This case arose out of a challenge to the constitutionality of evidence seized from

Grubbs’s home under the authority of an anticipatory search warrant. Such warrants typically