|
I don't practice criminal law, and therefore know little constitutional law. That said, I find this unanimous opinion to be pretty crappy law. Putting aside the consent-once-removed doctrine, which makes no sense, the reversal of the 10th Circuit was premised upon the unfairness of law enforcement having to guess whether on not Saucier would be adopted in their jurisdiction. I can see it now...officers are getting ready to do the bust, but they huddle up first, to debate potential civil liability if Saucier isn't adopted. Uh huh.
This serves as an example of how the same set of facts can yield different results. If this opinion means what it says, then the search was possibly lawful, in which event the plaintiff in the 1983 action maybe shouldn't have had his criminal conviction vacated...even though the Utah attorney general conceded on appeal that no exigent circumstances existed. The Supremes most likely would not have allowed the conviction to stand, but on the other hand, they weren't about to let the meth dealer prevail against the good guys on the civil claim.
There was no reason to not go get a warrant. No evidence suggested that the dealer and his freezer full of meth were going anywhere. The 10th Circuit got it right.
|