Federal Judiciary

Petition of the day

By Kiran Bhat

Today’s first petition of the day is:

Title: Wrisley v. Crowe
Docket: 10-376
Issue(s): (1) Whether police are subject to liability under the Fifth Amendment for allegedly coercive questioning used only in pre-trial proceedings that do not impose criminal penalties; (2) whether police are subject to liability for questioning excluded under the Fifth Amendment and not rising to a level that "shocks the conscience" under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) whether police can "shock the conscience" for purposes of liability under the Fourteenth Amendment by non-tortious conduct that causes or threatens no physical harm.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Today’s second petition of the day is:

Title: McDonough v. Crowe
Docket: 10-377
Issue(s): (1) Whether use of a suspect's coerced testimony in a judicial proceeding short of a criminal trial in which penalties may be imposed violates the Fifth Amendment; (2) whether police interview techniques that have garnered judicial approval (such as lying) constitute coercion under the Fifth Amendment when applied to a minor; (3) whether a police officer's solely verbal conduct that does not involve any threat of harm constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process; (4) whether a police officer's conduct must "shock the conscience" to violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee against deprivation of familial companionship; and (5) whether the Ninth Circuit departed from established principles of qualified immunity in holding that a police officer may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for interrogating a minor using solely verbal techniques that did not involve any threats.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Today’s third petition of the day is:

Title: Blum v. Crowe
Docket: 10-420
Issue(s): (1) Whether a private psychologist whom police ask to consult on an interrogation of a suspect in a murder investigation is entitled to assert qualified immunity pursuant to Richardson v. McKnight; (2)whether the holding and standards of Richardson should be clarified or reexamined; (3) whether the tactics employed during Plaintiff's interrogations violated the Fourteenth Amendment "shocks the conscience"; and (4) whether the law was clearly established that the tactics employed during Plaintiff's interrogations were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Certiorari-Stage Documents:

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on October 08, 2010 (boomark / email).