State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in November: Criminal Law Edition

Each month, State Court Report previews upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases. The election will be the big story of November, and — depending on what happens — could generate high-profile arguments in state supreme courts around the country this month. But it’s not the only story, as reflected in the existing dockets of state high courts.

State Court Report is using this installment of its monthly feature to focus on one category of non-election issues before state supreme courts in November: the collateral consequences of criminal charges, even when they do not result in conviction.

Police Use of GPS Data from People Monitored Pre-trial — November 4

Commonwealth v. Anthony Govan, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

The Massachusetts high court will consider whether a defendant whose charges are not yet decided and who is released pre-trial subject to GPS monitoring has a reasonable expectation of privacy in location data collected from the monitoring device. Specifically, the court will decide whether law enforcement’s use of that data to investigate the defendant in connection with a new, unrelated crime violates his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the state or federal constitution.

The defendant here was charged with weapon possession and assault and battery after police, without a warrant, requested from the state probation agency identifying and location information for any GPS-monitored person in the vicinity at the time of a shooting. He argues that the police’s access and search of his location data was illegal because the state’s tracking of his “every movement for an indefinite period” was overbroad in the first place. His consent to wear a GPS device as a condition of release, he also contends, was involuntary and did not clearly cover the extent of tracking and review conducted by the state.

The state responds that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his location data while knowingly being monitored, so no search for constitutional purposes occurred. But the state relies on a Massachusetts high court case related to the GPS monitoring of convicted defendants, which defendant and amicus groups say is inapposite because people who have not yet been tried are presumed innocent and therefore have greater liberty and privacy interests.

Watch the arguments here.

Claims Available to Incarcerated People Seeking Work Behind Bars — November 7

Huskey v. Oregon Dept. of Corrections, Oregon Supreme Court

The Oregon Supreme Court will consider provisions of the Oregon Constitution that say incarcerated people should work or engage in on-the-job training while in custody but have no “legally enforceable right” to a job, training, or to “compensation for work or labor.” At issue is whether those provisions preclude an incarcerated person who does not get such assignments from suing for lost wages.

The plaintiff in this case alleges that he was denied job assignments and training in prison after corrections officers retaliated against him for previously suing the department. He claims this retaliation breached a settlement in the earlier action and has sued for breach of contract. The lower courts found that the lack of a legally enforceable right to a job or training in custody barred him from seeking damages for the loss of such opportunities.

In an amicus brief filed with the state high court in support of the plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the state constitutional provisions have “no bearing” on damages for breach of contract. Under basic contract principles, the groups asserts, the plaintiff’s right to performance of the settlement agreement separately entitles him to damages, including for lost work and training opportunities so long as he shows those losses were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.

Watch the arguments here.

May Teacher Discipline Records for Charges Stay Public Post-Acquittal? — November 19

R.W., Aplt. v. Dept. of Education and T.G.A., Aplt. v. Dept. of Education, Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear two cases together about a law that generally requires state education bodies to make proceedings that result in teacher discipline public on their websites. At issue is whether either the law itself, or due process principles in the Pennsylvania Constitution, require the state bodies to remove from their public-facing websites all references to the suspensions imposed on teachers who are charged with serious crimes, if those charges are subsequently resolved in the educators’ favor.

The lower court ruled in both cases that the specific references to the educators’ criminal charges must be removed from the websites, but not the full record of their suspensions. By “continuing to associate” teachers with charges that resulted in acquittal or were dropped and then expunged, the specific references violate the educators’ fundamental due process right to protect their reputations from misleading information, the lower court said. But the court disagreed that that right required deleting the entire disciplinary record based on the charges, where the record noted that the suspension had been lifted.

The Pennsylvania high court may also address whether continuing to make public a suspension under these circumstances violates educators’ property right to practice their profession. The lower court in T.G.A. found that even specific references to the charges did not run afoul of that right.

Watch the arguments here.

Does indiscriminate drug and alcohol testing violate parolees’ privacy rights? — November 19

Washington v. Jasper Nelson, Washington Supreme Court

The Washington Supreme Court will address whether random breath and urinalysis testing as a condition of community custody — akin to parole in Washington — violates the right to privacy under the state constitution, where alcohol and drugs played no role in the underlying crime. The Washington Constitution guarantees that “[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs,” and the state’s courts have recognized “heightened protection for bodily functions compared to the federal courts.”

The defendant, an individual sentenced to community custody, acknowledges that individuals under state supervision necessarily have less privacy protection than ordinary community members. But he argues that they nonetheless retain a right to be free of random drug and alcohol testing, given the observation often involved in collecting urine samples, the private medical information revealed, and the jail time that can result from a failed test. Under the heightened review standard applicable to privacy rights, the defendant asserts, the state’s interests in public safety, rehabilitation, and punishment of the underlying offense cannot justify such intrusive testing unless it is directly related to the actual offense committed.

The state responds that it is not the facts of the underlying crime that dictate what level of government intrusion is permissible in the context of community custody, but rather the custody conditions imposed on the individual. The court below agreed, finding dispositive that Washington’s community custody law allows conditions prohibiting drug and alcohol use even if such use did not contribute to the offense. Taking away the “government’s tools for monitoring and enforcement” of those conditions, the state argues in support of that decision, is “like de-clawing a cat and expecting it to climb a tree.”

Watch the arguments here.

Sarah Kessler is an advisor to State Court Report.

Suggested Citation: Sarah Kessler, State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in November: Criminal Law Edition, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Oct. 29, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-november-criminal-law-edition