Today in Supreme Court History: January 26

Crawford v. Nashville, 555 U.S. 271 (decided January 26, 2009): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids retaliation against an employee who makes an accusation of sexual harassment.  Here the Court holds that it also protects an employee who reports sexual harassment only after being asked about it by the employer’s agent as part of an investigation into the alleged harasser.  (That’s right: at a presumably confidential investigative interview she was asked if she’d heard about this guy harassing anyone, she said yes, and she got fired for it.)

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (decided January 26, 2009): Warrantless patdown of passenger justified during Terry stop (expired registration) when answers and clothing indicated gang membership (Crips) and defendant had a police scanner in his pocket (handy for a getaway car). The opinion contains a good, brief summary of traffic stop law that began with Terry (see June 10).

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (decided January 26, 1976):  Postal inspectors can arrest you if you have stolen mail (or even for any felony, evidently even if unconnected with mail, 18 U.S.C. §3061(a)(2)).  Here, the Court holds that an arrest in a restaurant did not need a warrant, after a “reliable informant” told inspector that defendant possessed stolen credit cards.  (My old girlfriend worked for the county Weights and Measures Bureau, going around in her uniform testing meat scales in stores, etc., and learned that technically she had the power to arrest people.  She never did, of course, but it would have been fun to do her last day on the job.)

Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (decided January 26, 1959): warrantless arrest allowed where informant had described what train defendant would be stepping off of, what he would be wearing, the color of his satchel (which contained heroin), and that he would be walking fast

Shapiro v. Doe, 396 U.S. 488 (decided January 26, 1970): Court dismisses appeal of decision voiding requirement that mother of non-marital children receiving welfare reveal name of man she was living with, because appeal deadline missed by one day; Black and Douglas dissent, arguing that the Constitutional issues are important enough to invoke Court’s power to overlook deadline in the interest of justice (I don’t think the Court ever got another chance to address this question)