OnTheIssuesLogo

John Roberts on Crime

Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)


Ok to prosecute for eating french fries on city trains

There was a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority case?known as the french fry case?which some critics point to as a sign of a certain hard-heartedness in Roberts' decision making. In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a DC Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.
Source: Tony Mauro, Legal Times Feb 22, 2005

Guidelines for parole can't add to sentence retroactively

Roberts joined the decision in FLETCHER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:

Thaddeus Fletcher sued the DC Department of Corrections, claiming the Parole Commission violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution by determining his parole eligibility date on the basis of parole guidelines promulgated after his incarceration date. The district court dismissed Fletcher's claim. We held Fletcher's claim failed because a parole guideline is not a law. Fletcher now calls our attention to Garner v. Jones, in which the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a non-binding parole regulation under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit's decision that a parole board rule changing the time for reconsideration of parole from three to eight years necessarily violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Supreme Court foreclosed our categorical distinction between a law and guidelines ; rather, the question is one of practical effect. Accordingly, we vacate our previous judgment.

Source: FindLaw case 02-5228, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit Nov 19, 2004

Police supervisors not liable for misdeeds of officers

Roberts authored the decision in INTERNATIONAL ACTION CENTER v. UNITED STATES:

Plaintiffs seek to hold four police supervisors personally liable for constitutional torts allegedly committed by their two subordinates, on the theory that the supervisors failed properly to train and supervise the subordinates. The four supervisors claim qualified immunity, which the district court denied. We hold that the district court erred, and accordingly reverse.

Plaintiffs are members of the IAC, a political association opposed to oppression, militarism, and the Bush Administration. During the 2001 Inaugural Parade, they claim to have been engaged in only lawful activity, and were struck, and sprayed with pepper spray, while uniformed police officers stood by and watched. Plaintiffs seek to hold two officers' supervisors personally liable for money damages.

We reject plaintiffs' theory of liability for general inaction, mindful of the degree of fault necessary to implicate supervisory liability.

Source: FindLaw case 03-5163, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit Apr 16, 2004

Other Justices on Crime: John Roberts on other issues:
Samuel Alito
Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Anthony Kennedy
Sandra Day O'Connor
William Rehnquist
John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
David Souter
John Paul Stevens
Clarence Thomas

Other Political Leaders:
George W. Bush
Al Gore
Ralph Nader
Hillary Clinton
Elizabeth Dole
John McCain
Robert Reich
Janet Reno
Jesse Ventura

Party Platforms:
Democratic Platform
Green Platform
Libertarian Platform
Republican Platform
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty

Page last updated: 3/27/2008