Mar 302011
 March 30, 2011  Posted by  Court

I’ve mentioned Tolentino two times on this blog – mostly because of a powerful amicus brief filed by EPIC that addresses the use of databases that often contain erroneous information.  The question before the Supreme Court in Tolentino, as summarized by SCOTUSblog was:

Whether pre-existing identity-related governmental documents, such as motor vehicle records, obtained as the direct result of police action violative of the Fourth Amendment, are subject to the exclusionary rule?

It seems that the Supreme Court has had a change of mind in this case, though, after hearing oral argument last week. Yesterday they dismissed the writ of certiorari they had granted as “improvidently granted.” Is that SCOTUS-speak for “We found out this case was not what we thought it was about and don’t want to touch it?”

Kent Scheidegger offers his thoughts on why the writ was dismissed this way over on Crime and Consequences (h/t, Orin Kerr).

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.