Research Associates
	Volume 14, Number 7       Our 25th Year   July 2006

“Our constitution works. Our great republic is a government of laws, not of men.” -- Gerald R. Ford

“The preservation of civil liberties is a duty of every Government. . . . Today, Freedom From Fear, and the democratic institutions which sustain it, are again under attack. . . .” -- Harry S. Truman

“The liberty both of exposing and opposing arbitrary power by speaking and writing the truth . . . It is the best cause. It is the cause of liberty. . . .” -- Andrew Hamilton

DECISIONS OF INTEREST

SUPREME COURT

Garcetti v. Ceballos, No. 04–473 (U.S.S.C. May 30, 2006)
When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/04473.html
 

Zedner v. US, No. 05–5992 (U.S.S.C. June 05, 2006)
A defendant may not prospectively waive the application of the Speedy Trial Act. For purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, when a district court makes no findings on the record to support an "ends of justice" continuance under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(8), harmless-error review is not appropriate. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/055992.html
 

Hudson v. Michigan, No. 04–1360 (U.S.S.C. June 15, 2006)
Petitioner's conviction for drug possession is affirmed over his claim that evidence seized following police's premature entry of his home should have been suppressed since a violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule does not require suppression of evidence found in a search. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/041360.html
 

Rapanos v. US, No. 04–1034 (U.S.S.C. June 19, 2006)
In cases involving certain state wetlands lying near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters, judgments against petitioners-landowners are vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to whether the specific wetlands at issue possessed a significant nexus with navigable waters for purposes of regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA). http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/041034.html
 

Samson v. California, No. 04–9728 (U.S.S.C. June 19, 2006)
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.  http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/049728.html
 

Davis v. Washington, No. 05–5224, 05–5705 (U.S.S.C. June 19, 2006)
In the context of determining whether statements are testimonial for hearsay purposes, statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.  http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/055224.html
 

THIRD CIRCUIT

Surrick v. Killion, No. 05-2615 (June 02, 2006)
A state may not prohibit an attorney admitted to the bar of a federal district court, but suspended from the state bar, from maintaining a legal office for the sole purpose of supporting a practice before the federal court.   http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/052615p.pdf
 

SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Healy v. City of Chicago, No. 04-3155 (June 16, 2006)
Summary judgment for defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit alleging retaliation for an employee's allegations of corruption is affirmed where the employee did not present evidence substantiating the causal link between his protected reports of corruption and the subsequent adverse employment actions. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/043155p.pdf
 

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Davis v. Williams, No. 05-13373 (06/07/06)
Summary judgment for defendant-sheriff in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 and personal injury case is reversed where yelling unaccompanied by physical actions does not constitute obstruction of justice, thus there was no arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0513373p.pdf
 

NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS

Sung Hwan Co. v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 60 (N.Y. June 06, 2006)
Complaint for enforcement of a foreign money judgment entered by a Korean court is reinstated where the fact that a foreign country's substantive law differs from New York law, is not a sufficient basis for the nonrecognition of its judgments, and principles of comity warrant mutual respect of such judgments if jurisdiction is otherwise proper. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/60opn06.pdf
 

MATTERS OF INTEREST

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH CIRCUIT
Grossman explains the history and current status of pregnancy discrimination law—focusing on a recent case involving a pregnant trucker. In that case, the Court upheld an employer's policy of allowing "light duty" assignments only for those employees who incurred on-the-job injuries, and not for others, including pregnant women. Grossman explains why the plaintiff's litigation strategy resulted in a win for the employer—and notes that with another strategy, the trucker might have prevailed. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060613.html
 

INTERPRETING THE ESPIONAGE ACT
NYU global affairs expert Klarevas discusses whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can invoke the Espionage Act—as Gonzales has threatened to do—against the reporters that publish leaked, classified information. Klarevas covers a key 1971 Supreme Court precedent that strongly indicates such prosecutions might be possible—but also notes the possibility that the current Supreme Court may rule otherwise. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060609_klarevas.html
 

BRIEF RELIEF – MATTERS IN PROGRESS

1. New York - appeal of decision from town court to appellate term
2. Florida – matrimonial research
3. Georgia – material on surplus money proceedings in foreclosure
4. Pennsylvania – wills and power of attorneys
5. draft of specific interrogatories and develop questions for deposition
6. liability for casino marker