Via Ninth Circuit Blog comes a recent order from the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing in United States v. Gonzalez concerning the application of a new search and seizure decision by the United States Supreme Court. In one corner, we have the dissent:
How does it deter police misconduct in the future to tell the police: “the evidence you seized legally, under the law, cannot be used because the law has changed, and now, what wasn’t misconduct at the time you acted has become misconduct”? The attentive policeman hearing this might well look blankly and ask: “Who knew? Am I supposed to guess? What am I supposed to do next time? Not follow the law as written by the Ninth Circuit, but hold back a little? How much?”
In the other corner, we have the majority who voted to deny re-hearing:
Judge Bea’s dissent presents a distorted view of what this case is all about. It requires a response that can be part of the public record. Otherwise our panel’s reasoned response to the en banc call would remain hidden from public view.
The Ninth Circuit Blog breaks down the issues and impact of this decision here.