|
John Roberts on Drugs
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
|
|
|
Ok to search cars without particular evidence in mind
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally,
because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)
Source: Emily Bazelon and David Newman, Slate.com
, Jul 1, 2005
Judges cannot overrule guidelines even if unjust
Roberts wrote the court’s ruling in UNITED STATES v. TUCKER:The district judge declined to sentence the defendant according to the Sentencing Guidelines because he disagreed with the Guidelines. As the judge put it, he was “not going to be the
instrument of injustice.”
On March 20, 2003, Tucker pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The Guidelines range from 57-71 months’ imprisonment. At the July 18, 2003 pre-sentence hearing, the district court acknowledged Tucker’s
drug testing failures, but observed that Tucker had “comported himself as a model citizen since his arrest.”
The district court was not attempting to apply the Guidelines in this case; it instead seemed intent on defying them. A downward departure in
sentencing [might or might not apply, but] we vacate Tucker’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines. So long as these Guidelines are the law of the land, we-and the district courts-are obligated to apply them.
Source: FindLaw case 03-3139, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
, Oct 26, 2004
Sentences should stand despite crack-vs.-powder rule change.
Justice Roberts wrote the dissent on FREEMAN v. UNITED STATES on Jun 23, 2011:
The defendant entered into an agreement with the prosecution to plead guilty to crack cocaine possession. Following this plea, the sentencing guidelines federal judges must consider when they impose prison terms were retroactively revised to lower the prison time required in crimes involving cocaine base [crack cocaine], which were higher than those for powder cocaine. The law permitted defendants who were sentenced based upon the old guideline to seek the lower prison sentence if the guideline was revised downward.
HELD: Delivered by KENNEDY, joined by GINSBURG, BREYER & KAGAN
The Court must determine whether this defendant may take advantage of the lowering of the sentencing guidelines for the [crack cocaine] offense he was sentenced for. Even though this defendant was sentenced in accordance with an agreement, the Court finds that district court judges have a duty to consider the sentencing guidelines at all times, includinwg when deciding whether to accept a guilty
plea that is contingent upon one of these agreements. Since the guidelines are the starting point for all sentencing decisions, even a defendant who agrees to a sentence may seek to have his sentence revised after a guidelines change.CONCURRED: SOTOMAYOR concurs in the judgment
A sentence under one of these agreements is based upon the agreement itself, not on the judge's calculation of the guidelines. However, the agreement in this case expressly used the guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment. When an agreement uses the guidelines, a defendant may seek reduction of his prison term based upon a guideline revision.DISSENT: ROBERTS dissents; joined by SCALIA, THOMAS & ALITO
A sentence based upon an agreement is based upon the agreement alone, whether or not the sentencing guidelines were considered, and a defendant so sentenced should not be allowed the opportunity for a sentencing revision when the guidelines are changed.
Source: Supreme Court case 11-FREEMAN argued on Feb 23, 2011
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022