Monday, April 16, 2007

Sanchez v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. - April 16, 2007)

Time for a quiz. Two questions. One hard. One easy. The former's multiple choice. The latter's fill in the blank.

Easy one first:

(1) Which of the following groups wrote and signed on to the snippet that follows, which is the first paragraph of a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc:

"I dissent from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. I disagree with the majority’s decision and strongly believe that this case requires en banc review. This case strikes an unprecedented blow at the core of Fourth Amendment protections. The majority opinion clings to Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971), asserting that it directly controls this case. This is unsupportable for three reasons. First, as clearly outlined in Judge Fisher’s dissent, the program upheld in Wyman was significantly different in scope and goal from San Diego’s program. Second, allowing Wyman to constrict the bounds of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ignores over thirty-five years of intervening law. Third, allowing this opinion to stand is an assault on our country’s poor as we require them to give up their rights of privacy in exchange for essential public assistance."

(A) Judge Pregerson, joined by Judges Reinhardt, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Fisher, Paez, and Berzon. Or
(B) Judge O'Scannlain, joined by Judges Rymer, Clifton, Bybee, Callahan, and Bea.

You should feel shame -- serious shame -- if you get that one wrong. Oh, by the way, here's the final paragraph of that dissent:

"This case is nothing less than an attack on the poor. San Diego’s program strips these individuals of their rights of privacy. These people who are already suffering from disabilities, loss of work, and other hardships must then suffer humiliation and further assaults on their dignity. This is especially atrocious in light of the fact that we do not require similar intrusions into the homes and lives of others who receive government entitlements. The government does not search through the closets and medicine cabinets of farmers receiving
subsidies. They do not dig through the laundry baskets and garbage pails of real estate developers or radio broadcasters. The overwhelming majority of recipients of government benefits are not the poor, and yet this is the group we require to sacrifice their dignity and their right to privacy. This situation is shameful. This case should have been considered by the en banc court, and it should have been reversed."

Got it now?

Here's a tougher one, and the true test of your Ninth Circuit prowess:

Fill in the blank. Someone wrote the following separate dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, which, in its entirety, reads as follows: "I dissent for the reasons expressed in Judge Fisher’s trenchant panel dissent." That someone is Judge ______.

Hint: Trenchant.

Here are the answers.

Interesting case. Very.