 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:19:02 |
On today’s podcast, our hosts discuss the Supreme Court’s March 25 ruling in Torres v. Madrid, a Fourth Amendment case involving a failed attempt by police officers to restrain suspect Roxanne Torres using physical force. “She’s claiming that they violated her Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably seizing her,” Sarah explains. “And the question becomes: Can you seize someone if they got away?” After a deep dive into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, Sarah and David talk about the legal history surrounding hate crimes and the constitutionality of D.C. statehood. They end the episode with some career advice for their aspiring lawyer listeners.
Show Notes:
-Caniglia v. Strom, Torres v. Madrid, Terry v. Ohio, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Wisconsin v. Mitchell
-“Supreme Court agrees to hear first abortion case with 6-3 conservative majority” by Alice Miranda Ollstein in Politico.
I came here for the "Sarah described a flail not a mace" talk. I'm a little surprised David didn't catch that medieval faux pas.
Otherwise, another fun, informative podcast. Thanks David and Sarah!
I loved the argument on hate crimes for murder. It reminded me of the George W. Bush debate again Al Gore when Gore asserted that Bush was not serious for failing to pass a hate crime law wanted by James Byrd’s family. W. responded that the killers (actually two of the three) were sentenced to death. Is there an extra penalty more severe than death if the murder is also a hate crime?