Supreme Court News

Special Newsletter for April 22, 2015

 

By Derek Gilna

 

            The US Supreme Court has once again pushed back against overly intrusive government searches of defendants in a routine encounter with police where police have no grounds for such a search.  The newly-announced decision in Rodriguez v U.S., 13-9972, reversed and remanded an Eighth Circuit ruling that the search of defendant’s car by a drug sniffing dog was within the scope of the traffic stop for a minor traffic violation, and that an eight-minute delay for the motorist was constitutionally acceptable.

            Not so fast, the Supreme Court said, calling the search “unlawful.” The Supreme Court has previously struck down convictions based upon evidence gained as a result of a warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on a defendant’s motor vehicle.  Interestingly, Justice Scalia, generally known for his conservative views, once again joined the majority of justices to further limit government’s ability to arrest people without probable cause. The justices were not persuaded by the government argument that the intrusion on defendant rights was justified by the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs. (This is the same faulty Government rationale used to justify TSA searching Granny at airports in the name of stopping “terrorism.”)

            It is hard to overestimate the value of this decision.  Although obviously it is limited to the facts of this case, it sets clear limits on what is and isn’t acceptable in police stops.   Of course, it would not be helpful in cases where the defendant is already under investigation by police or fleeing the scene of a crime.

            Brick by brick the high court is starting to slowly build a wall of protection of citizen rights, to rein in the natural tendency of law enforcement to expand its power beyond what is necessary to perform its core function of protecting its citizens against violence and disaster.  All we have to do is read the newspaper to see that the public is fed up with police misconduct in patrolling the streets, and ready to have a discussion as to what and what is not proper policing.

Is this ruling applicable to your case and your set of facts.

 

Derek Gilna

113 McHenry #173

Buffalo Grove, IL  60089

dgilna1948@yahoo.com

A Small Victory for Prisoner Dignity

Prisoner’s Battle for Decent Medical Care Humbles BOP, Wins Cash Settlement

 

By Derek Gilna

 

            Those of you who follow this newsletter know that I have been honored to be a writer for Prison Legal News (PLN), a publication that has been a champion for prisoner rights and a tireless campaigner for decent treatment of federal prisoners.   Recently in that capacity, I submitted an article to PLN about a prisoner who, filing pro se, won a hard-earned settlement against the BOP for shoddy medical care, not for a life-threatening illness, but for one of those myriad examples of deliberate indifference to those everyday medical issues that, if ignored, can often turn into larger, life-threatening conditions.

            This news item will not gain big headlines, but it is an example for all of us as to what can be accomplished by a slow, steady effort of using the documents and procedures that currently exist to win relief.  Although a competent legal professional would have surely won more settlement money than he was able to obtain while confined in the federal system, it shows that many judges do take these administrative procedures and prisoner court filings seriously.

            Michael Alan Crooker filed a Federal Tort Claims (FTCA) under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2671-2680 alleging "malicious prosecution, negligence, and medical maltreatment by the United States Marshall's Service ('USMS') and the United States Bureau of Prisons) 'BOP')." The pro se litigant weathered a government motion for summary judgment and endured to win a $8,000 settlement from the federal government.

            Crooker, prior to filing the suit, was a diligent advocate for his own medical treatment, refused to tolerate the continuing pattern of inadequate BOP medical treatment.  The plaintiff then had to endure the standard BOP policy of making life difficult for any prison who dares to challenge this medical indifference by purposely denying him proper corrective eye wear, which included loss of good-time on questionable grounds. Crooker also had complained of the fact that the BOP psychologist had improperly revealed confidential medical information to non-authorized personnel, in contravention of the BOP's own policy statement.

 

            Similar opportunities for relief exist for you, if you are only willing to take advantage of them. Mike Crooker didn’t give up, and won not only some money, but some well-deserved self-respect and necessary medical treatment. The BOP paid the settlement money into Crooker's commissary account, making him, at least for a time, a very popular man on the pound.

Derek Gilna
dgilna1948@yahoo.com

Sentencing Updates

Newest Trends in Sentencing Relief

 

By Derek Gilna

 

            Although there was nothing of great substance to report on the Congressional front in the quest for retroactive sentencing relief, the two-level drug reduction and clemency cases continue to move slowly and at an uneven pace through the justice system, depending upon your court’s location, case load, and level of interest.  There is also some news to report on both life sentences and sex cases, based upon new U.S. Sentencing Commission (SC) reports.

            To put all of this in perspective, a quick analysis on how the federal bureaucracy works is in order.  First, there is a private discussion among prisoner relief organizations, members of Congress and their staff, and the Sentencing Commission.  At some point, this discussion goes public, but the broad parameters of relief have already been decided behind closed doors.  This was the pattern followed in the crack reductions,  the two-level reductions, and the pending white-collar reductions.

            However, it has been little noticed that the high number of drug-related, non-violent offenses has been the subject of a March, 2015 SC report which indirectly criticizes the number of such sentences (most of which are given after an adverse trial verdict), and notes that many other mandatory minimum sentences also are in effect life sentences, given the offender’s life expectancy. Sex offender sentencing earlier came under similar scrutiny by the SC in early 2013, with little follow-up discussion in the media thereafter.  Nonetheless, it does appear that some behind-the-scenes dialogue is taking place on these draconian sentences that bear little relationship to actual harm caused.  The SC called the sentencing levels “outdated” and subject to “widespread inconsistent application.” When further progress is noted on both areas, I will so advise you.

            In the meantime, I am available to handle  any issue that you might have in the court system and the prison system, including moving along any filings that you already have dragging along without apparent progress. To the extent that direct, non-pro se legal action is needed in the many scattered federal district courts, I work with attorneys all over the country who charge reasonable fees and who are pleased to present the pleadings or other documents that I have drafted. I have been involved in the federal courts not for months or years, but decades.  Put that experience and perspective to work for you.

 

Derek Gilna

113 McHenry #173

Buffalo Grove, IL  60089

dgilna1948@yahoo.com

(847) 878-0160