So the Supreme Court denied a cert petition to hear Pennsylvania v. Dunlap, which dealt with whether police have probable cause to make an arrest if they see people in a high-crime neighborhood exchanging cash for "small objects." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the officers lacked probable cause, so Dunlap's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when they arrested him. Robert and Kennedy disagree.
But here's the fun:
The Supreme Court denied review of the case, so Roberts wrote a dissent from the denial. Generally, I would think, dissents from denial are as bland as they sound (not that I read them), but I think I agree with mystery writer Paul Levine's theory that Roberts lost a bet on this one.* The dissent starts like this:
North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.And then he continues, as if nothing had happened, in typical court language.
Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up thebuyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.
Levine, via Tony Mauro in the Legal Times blog:
"My guess is that the chief lost a bet with Scalia on the baseball playoffs. If Roberts wins the next wager, Scalia will have to write an opinion in iambic pentameter."I hope so.
*(For the record, Orin Kerr's theory is less fun but more likely -- that Roberts knew this would get the attention of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, whose decision he wanted to reverse.)
No comments:
Post a Comment