Roberts’ Court Inches Away From the Legacy of Its Predecessors

In a 5-4 split decision today, the Court affirmed the Michigan State Court of Appeals in refusing to exclude evidence gathered in legally questionable circumstancesFor main stream media reaction see the Trib, the Monitor, and excerpts from the opinions on Forbes and the Post.

The Detroit police executing a search warrant for narcotics and weapons entered Booker Hudson’s home in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s “knock-and-announce” rule. The trial court granted Hudson’s motion to suppress the evidence seized, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed on interlocutory appeal. Hudson was convicted of drug possession. Affirming, the State Court of Appeals rejected Hudson’s renewed Fourth Amendment claim. Held: The judgment is affirmed.

What is interesting is the way the court split.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinionconcurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

This is a long way from the Warren and Burger courts – actually it’s a long way from Rehnquist too. The balance is visibly shifting.