- In Rodriguez, the question presented, as stated in the petition, is:
- This Court has held that, during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, asking a driver to exit a
- vehicle, conducting a drug sniff with a trained canine, or asking a few off-topic questions are “de minimis” intrusions on personal liberty that do not require reasonable suspicion of
- criminal activity in order to comport with the Fourth Amendment. This case poses the
- question of whether the same rule applies after the conclusion of the traffic stop, so that an
- officer may extend the already-completed stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification.
- In Clark, the Court will address (1) Whether an individual’s obligation to report suspected child abuse makes that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause; and (2) whether a child’s out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher’s concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause.
Tags: Attorney New Orleans, Cert granted in Rodriguez and Ohio v. Clark, Criminal Attorney, Criminal Attorney New Orleans, Criminal Defense Attorney New Orleans, Criminal Defense Lawyer New Orleans, Criminal Lawyer New Orleans, Federal Case Law Update, Federal Criminal Attorney New Orleans, New Orleans Criminal Lawyer, New Orleans Federal Criminal Attorney, New Orleans Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer, New Orleans Federal Criminal Lawyer, United States Supreme Court