Jul. 8, 2016
Utah v. Strieff; Moore v. Regents; U.S. v. Gerard Smith
Professor Jeffrey Fisher, co-director of Stanford Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, helps wrap the show's coverage of SCOTUS' just-completed term, considering Utah v. Strieff's impact on the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule. Hon. Jeffrey Winikow (Ret.) considers a recent employment ruling that renders summary judgment a less reliable resort for employer defendants, and David Gammill, of Geragos & Geragos discusses Ninth Circuit oral arguments in an appeal regarding the LA Sheriff's Department's obstruction of an FBI jailhouse investigation.
This week our guests consider the exclusionary rule, summary judgment in the employment discrimination context, and culpability of subordinate law enforcement officers following orders.
Jeffrey Fisher, who co-directs Stanford Law's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, will chat about Utah v. Strieff, a recent SCOTUS filing that, according to a blistering dissent by Justice Sotomayor, severely undermines the power of the exclusionary rule, and could subject American citizens to living in a 'carceral state.'
Former LA Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Winikow will then join the podcast to speak about Moore v. UC Regents, a case that Judge Winikow says will almost certainly be a part of employment plaintiffs' briefs in similar cases well into the future.
Last, David Gammill, of Geragos & Geragos, will discuss oral arguments heard this week in the Ninth Circuit in the case of U.S. v. Gerard Smith et al, which considers the culpability of sheriff's deputies who, acting on orders from higher-ranking officers, hid an FBI informant inmate in the LA County jail system, thus obstructing the FBI's investigation of potential civil rights abuses in the jails.