Today in Supreme Court History: May 16, 1918

5/16/1918: The Sedition Act of 1918 is enacted. The Supreme Court upheld prosecutions brought under this law in Schenck, Debs, and Abrams.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (decided May 16, 1988): police can search garbage left out by the curb without a warrant

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (decided May 16, 1892): This is the famous case which dragged on for 24 years, and this was the decision which made it famous, introducing a new rule of evidence, the hearsay exception for future intention. Sallie Hillmon tried to collect on life insurance policies, by proving that her husband had died by accidental gunshot at Crooked Creek, Kansas in 1879. Was the deceased John Hillmon or one Fred Walters? Here, the Court agrees with the insurance company that the trial court should have admitted a letter written at Wichita from Walters to his fiancée stating that he intended to go to Colorado with his new buddy Hillmon; this might show that it was really Walters who was shot because Crooked Creek was along the way and Walters, an assiduous letter writer, was never heard from again. My Evidence professor did his usual excellent job recounting this story, ending with, “To this day, nobody knows who was shot at Crooked Creek”, but Wikipedia reports on a 2006 exhumation which concluded that it probably was indeed Hillmon. Anyway, Sallie was paid off and after one final 1903 decision remanding for a seventh trial the remaining insurers settled with each other.

United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (decided May 16, 1905): State of Washington must respect fishing rights granted to Native Americans under treaty made with federal government when Washington was a territory

Lawrence v. State Tax Comm’n of Mississippi, 286 U.S. 276 (decided May 16, 1932): a state supreme court court can’t evade United States Supreme Court review by basing its decision on state law grounds that are insubstantial and illusory after a party has properly raised a federal issue (the issue was whether state taxation on income from activities out of state is consistent with Equal Protection)

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (decided May 16, 2016): Fair Credit Reporting Act suit citing incorrect information as to plaintiff on “people search engine” web site (where you punch in a person’s name and get all kinds of past and present relevant and irrelevant address information, etc.) did not allege “concrete injury” and therefore was not a “case or controversy” sufficient to invoke Article III jurisdiction

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (decided May 16, 2011): “exigent circumstances to prevent destruction of evidence” exception to warrant requirement applied when police officers, having knocked on door, broke it down after hearing noises of frantic movement as if to hide things

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (decided May 16, 1983): attorney in civil rights case (involving treatment during involuntary hospitalization) prevailing on most but not all claims is entitled to recoup fees spent in pursing related though unsuccessful claims but not fees as to factually unrelated claims

Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (decided May 16, 1994): ex-felon still bound by federal post-conviction restriction on ownership of firearm even though restriction due to state law conviction had been lifted

Hill v. United States, 50 U.S. 386 (decided May 16, 1850): judgment debtors in suit brought by the United States (for failure to pay a promissory note) are barred by sovereign immunity from moving to enjoin enforcement

Amis v. Myers, 57 U.S. 492 (decided May 16, 1854): error for slaves to be sold as part of satisfying judgment (they had been bought by debtor’s son, not by debtor, though debtor’s name had been on original contract of sale)

[Martinned2]

Here is the Sedition Act of 1918: https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/40/STATUTE-40-Pg553.pdf

[apedad]

Re: Kentucky v. King

Facts of the case

Police officers in Lexington, Ky., entered an apartment building in pursuit of a suspect who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. The officers lost sight of the suspect and mistakenly assumed he entered an apartment from which they could detect the odor of marijuana. After police knocked on the door and identified themselves, they heard movements, which they believed indicated evidence was about to be destroyed. Police forcibly entered the apartment and found Hollis King and others smoking marijuana. They also found cash, drugs and paraphernalia. King entered a conditional guilty plea; reserving his right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from what he argued was an illegal search.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that exigent circumstances supporting the warrantless search were not of the police's making and that police did not engage in deliberate and intentional conduct to evade the warrant requirement. In January 2010, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the lower court order, finding that the entry was improper. The court held that the police were not in pursuit of a fleeing suspect when they entered the apartment, since there was no evidence that the original suspect even knew he was being followed by police.

Question

Does the exclusionary rule, which forbids the use of illegally seized evidence except in emergency situations, apply when the emergency is created by lawful police actions?

Conclusion (8 - 1)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court order in a decision by Justice Samuel Alito. "The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment," Alito wrote for the majority. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, contending that "the Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases." (oyez)

I disagree here since the police didn't know where the original suspect fled to or even if he was in the apartment they entered, and it WAS the police who created the exigency - in this particular case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, quite true. I agree with you. Thanks!

[CJColucci]

As a matter of originalist theory, were these decisions incorrect? Is our whole modern view of the first amendment consistent with honest originalism?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know, but Congressional precedent from the early 19th century, refunding Sedition Act fines, was based on the assumption that this sort of law was unconstitutional.

Maybe Congress was wrong in refunding the fines – maybe it was right the first time, in 1798, when it passed the Sedition Law. But the matter was always contested, going back to 1798. So there’s no obvious answer, there’s competing traditions.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

By the way, I think the Schenck, Debs, Abrams etc. cases were based on the 1917 version of the Sedition Act, not the 1918 version. I vaguely recall this coming up before in Supreme Court History Today.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Schenck was prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. (Indeed, his conduct took place in 1917.) Debs and Abrams were prosecuted under the 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act that Prof. Blackman is talking about.

I'm sure he'll sort it out next year!