Today in Supreme Court History: February 20, 1933

2/20/1933: The 21st Amendment is submitted to the states.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (decided February 20, 1905): upholding state statute allowing local boards of health to require vaccinations (plaintiff contested Cambridge's 1902 attempt to stem smallpox epidemic)

Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. --- (decided February 20, 2019): Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment is enforceable against states under Fourteenth Amendment; remands on issue of whether civil forfeiture statute violates Clause (here, vehicle seized worth four times the heroin defendant transported in it) (Indiana Supreme Court ended up holding statute unconstitutional, 169 N.E.3d 361)

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (decided February 20, 2013): federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of patent cases but not legal malpractice claim alleging mishandling of patent case

United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707 (decided February 20, 1980): IRS doesn't need a court order to make you go to their office to provide a handwriting examplar

Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (decided February 20, 1974): housing discrimination action brought under Civil Rights Law of 1968 carries right to a jury trial, even though it didn't exist in 1791 when the Seventh Amendment was adopted and even though it allows injunctive relief (an equitable remedy; the 7A applies only to actions at law)

[apedad]

Re: United States v. Euge

For 4th Amend. purposes, "[o]btaining a handwriting exemplar is not a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A person has no expectation of privacy in handwriting because it is a physical characteristic which is constantly exposed to the public. So long as the initial seizure of the person is reasonable, compelling production of a handwriting exemplar is permissible.

For 5th Amend. purposes, "[t]he taking of handwriting exemplars is not a critical stage of a criminal proceeding requiring the assistance of counsel. A handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, is an identifying physical characteristic which falls outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment. It is not testimonial or communicative in nature."

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-252-handwriting-exemplars-no-right-counsel

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed! Thanks.

I suppose DNA isn’t testimony either, or blood, or semen.

[apedad]

Depends where it’s collected.

At the crime scene, then yes it’s evidence.

From the suspect, then no since those are identifying, physical characteristics.

Same with the handwriting scenarios.

The bad check or falsified document is the evidence.

The handwriting samples are not.

[Krayt]

Ahhh, the good old days, when evil people required constitutional permission to exercise a new power.

Fools should have assumed it all along.

[jdgalt1]

Please at least mention that the 21st was the only amendment submitted to state ratifying conventions. FDR wanted it done in a hurry, and didn't think the "dry" politicians then running most of the states would support it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think so. Causes of action created by statute are necessarily “at law”. Practically by definition they can’t be “equitable”.

[apedad]

There are techniques law enforcement uses to ensure suspects don't game the process.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A face is also not testimonial.

Early on in Dickens’s Pickwick Papers, Pickwick and his servant Sam Weller are ripped off by one Job Trotter who disappears. Thirty chapters later we read this:

Mr. Samuel Weller had been staring up at the old brick houses now and then, in his deep abstraction, bestowing a wink upon some healthy-looking servant girl as she drew up a blind, or threw open a bedroom window, when the green gate of a garden at the bottom of the yard opened, and a man having emerged therefrom, closed the green gate very carefully after him, and walked briskly towards the very spot where Mr. Weller was standing.

Now, taking this, as an isolated fact, unaccompanied by any attendant circumstances, there was nothing very extraordinary in it; because in many parts of the world men do come out of gardens, close green gates after them, and even walk briskly away, without attracting any particular share of public observation. It is clear, therefore, that there must have been something in the man, or in his manner, or both, to attract Mr. Weller’s particular notice. Whether there was, or not, we must leave the reader to determine, when we have faithfully recorded the behaviour of the individual in question.

When the man had shut the green gate after him, he walked, as we have said twice already, with a brisk pace up the courtyard; but he no sooner caught sight of Mr. Weller than he faltered, and stopped, as if uncertain, for the moment, what course to adopt. As the green gate was closed behind him, and there was no other outlet but the one in front, however, he was not long in perceiving that he must pass Mr. Samuel Weller to get away.

He therefore resumed his brisk pace, and advanced, staring straight before him. The most extraordinary thing about the man was, that he was contorting his face into the most fearful and astonishing grimaces that ever were beheld. Nature’s handiwork never was disguised with such extraordinary artificial carving, as the man had overlaid his countenance with in one moment.

‘Well!’ said Mr. Weller to himself, as the man approached. ‘This is wery odd. I could ha’ swore it was him.’

Up came the man, and his face became more frightfully distorted than ever, as he drew nearer.

‘I could take my oath to that ‘ere black hair and mulberry suit,’ said Mr. Weller; ‘only I never see such a face as that afore.’

As Mr. Weller said this, the man’s features assumed an unearthly twinge, perfectly hideous. He was obliged to pass very near Sam, however, and the scrutinising glance of that gentleman enabled him to detect, under all these appalling twists of feature, something too like the small eyes of Mr. Job Trotter to be easily mistaken.

‘Hollo, you Sir!’ shouted Sam fiercely.

The stranger stopped.

‘Hollo!’ repeated Sam, still more gruffly.

The man with the horrible face looked, with the greatest surprise, up the court, and down the court, and in at the windows of the houses—everywhere but at Sam Weller—and took another step forward, when he was brought to again by another shout.

‘Hollo, you sir!’ said Sam, for the third time.

There was no pretending to mistake where the voice came from now, so the stranger, having no other resource, at last looked Sam Weller full in the face.

‘It won’t do, Job Trotter,’ said Sam. ‘Come! None o’ that ‘ere nonsense. You ain’t so wery ‘andsome that you can afford to throw avay many o’ your good looks. Bring them ‘ere eyes o’ yourn back into their proper places, or I’ll knock ‘em out of your head. D’ye hear?’

As Mr. Weller appeared fully disposed to act up to the spirit of this address, Mr. Trotter gradually allowed his face to resume its natural expression; and then giving a start of joy, exclaimed, ‘What do I see? Mr. Walker!’