’WPC- †YKü7ēOĆŽ¼w®[ßM)aKü7ē·3f\ž„ī¼Og\‡łĄ¼œ+0\G×]ćčŅ~ ^ėN7ÜÄ:#b”GóǧĶ;ƒjĪÖŪwn¾/¼9õ÷›©L³Zß’õžÖJč·^6pĖ™ÆŠ¤pēm×}[`g~]£±ņćsŌōwzNĮϱDB€N‹[僑}j0ķ@¢5/Ŗ«Ūó!¦# ²a,jŪ’ƒ]m¢ ¤’ĄlLO· };0ąś÷–(‘ž}½¦žœŅ:Ę/ÓųøƒN9óŃ…‡Å…wXĄš*1Źķ²|WBėR‡Ż|"Ē’„x`8<@ȶ&%ē[ž€zĪõ²Jļ‰I” 6;s~C9Ēw¦“ 9Ō? L‰'JƒbĀ3f鼖™•o“zŗ”-n‡¾ ōš®źŻž(“äž.4¹œ„$'OƒuGĀŠvÓzT²Ą÷pXX3-ó² ČbÓ夔0x{Ļ–(IŻ2z‡CĮĶnV•Õn½”=— C–]`óŁęäsŪō͟SŽŌaō€Ÿ^fŹ Ī¹Æ¹Xē”䌭%ÜjtOq½TŻ#-µ!Ž0~Żł&sWWėŒTŌmY·ĮŻš2rČ)^;ŗ ±“æ5M‹ ®åüOÆ#ÉÄUN %Ū 0:į^ U,'wS4Wkz m|N“˜•˜CENTRAL OFFICEČČČČ0(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$””ŌUSUS.,Ō¶.Ö4— ,†r‰AZ‹Arial ”DĖ4ź:i¢×+003|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ BreyerSouter T]het]odaywarrantlesssuspicionlessAlitoŻ ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃTRXģ3Ų'Avery 8160 Ink Jet AddresXą3Ų' Letter3Ų'LetterNEW LABELS AddresXą’3Ų'LetterTŃŌ€X’ XXXŌŌ€ŠƒšˆXX’ ŌÓ  Óņ ņŌ‡īĄ„īˆŠƒšŌŃ8€įŠXXdģdČ8ŃHUDSON€V.€MICHIGANŌ#†ŠƒšˆīīĄ„Ž#Ō:Š ° ŠņņThe€exclusionary€rule€does€not€apply€to€evidence€seized€Š Ų( Šfollowing€a€knock„notice€violationóóŠ Ö& ŠĢDecided€by€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€on€June€15,€2006Š Ō$ Š5„4€Opinionó óŠ Ō $ ŠĢÓ  Óņņą0  ąą ° ąņ ņMajority:€Justice€Scalia,€Chief€Justice€Roberts,€Justices€Thomas€and€AlitoŠĢ (#(# ŠConcurrence:€Justice€KennedyŠ Ź  Šą0  ąą ° ąDissent:€Justice€Breyer,€joined€by€Justices€Stevens,€Souter€and€Ginsbergó óóóŠČ  (#(# ŠĢÓvÓņ ņAnalysis€by€Kathryn€Seligman,€Š ¾  ŠStaff€Attorney,€First€District€Appellate€Projectó óŠ ¾  ŠĢÓ  Óą  ąContrary€to€newspaper€headlines,€the€Supreme€Court€did€ņņnotóó€decide€thatŠ ¶ Šthe€police€need€not€knock€or€announce€their€presence€before€entering€aŠ ®ž Šresidence€to€execute€a€warrant.€Nor€did€the€Court€overturn€prior€decisions€holdingŠ ¦ö Šthat€failure€to€comply€with€knock„notice€constitutes€a€constitutional€violation.Š žī ŠHowever,€the€justices€did€deal€a€substantial,€possibly€fatal,€blow€to€knock„noticeŠ –ę Šcompliance€and€ultimately€to€the€continued€viability€of€the€exclusionary€rule€as€aŠ ŽŽ Šremedy€for€Fourth€Amendment€violations.€ņ ņŠ †Ö ŠĢą  ąIn€an€opinion€authored€by€Justice€Scalia€and€joined€by€four€justices,Š ~Ī Šthe€Court€held€that€the€exclusionary€rule€does€not€apply€to€knock„noticeŠ ~Ī Šviolations;€evidence€seized€following€this€type€of€unconstitutional€entryŠ ~Ī Šneed€not€be€suppressed€in€a€criminal€trial.ó óŠ ~Ī ŠĢą  ąIf€the€police€€š!š€armed€with€a€lawful€search€warrant€„„€violate€knock-noticeŠ vĘ Šrules€in€entering€Mr.€Smithššs€home,€discover€drugs,€and€then€charge€Mr.€SmithŠ n ¾ Šwith€possession€of€drugs€for€sale,€the€drugs€will€be€admitted€at€Mr.€SmithššsŠ f!¶ Šcriminal€trial.€If€Mr.€Smith€or€other€occupants€of€his€home€wish€to€seek€redress€forŠ ^"® Šthe€unlawful€entry€(e.g.€damages€for€a€broken€door),€they€must€file€a€civil€lawsuitŠ V#¦ Šor€a€complaint€with€the€police€department.€ņ ņOne€can€no€longer€file€a€motion€toŠ N$ž  Šsuppress€evidence€alleging€a€knock€notice€violation.ó óŠ N%ž ! ŠĢņņņ ņThe€Majority€Opinionó óóóŠ F'–"# ŠĢą  ąThe€Court€noted€that€a€knock„notice€violation€is€rarely€the€š šbut„foršš€cause€ofŠ <)Œ$% Šobtaining€inculpatory€evidence.€Knock„notice€rules€apply€when€police€officersŠ 4*„%& Šseek€to€enter€a€residence€to€execute€a€search€warrant€or€conduct€a€parole€orŠ ,+|&' Šprobation€search.€Consequently,€when€the€police€violate€knock„notice€rules€(e.g.Š $,t'( Šby€not€announcing€their€presence€or€waiting€sufficient€time€before€forcing€theirŠ ° Šway€in),€it€is€only€the€š šmanner€of€entryšš€that€is€illegal;€the€subsequent€search€andŠ Øų Šthe€seizure€of€incriminating€evidence€are€lawfully€authorized.€The€knock€noticeŠ  š Šviolation€is€merely€a€š špreliminary€misstepšš€in€the€process€of€executing€a€lawfulŠ ˜č Šwarrant€and€obtaining€the€evidence.€The€discovery€of€the€evidence€is€sufficientlyŠ ą Šattenuated€from€the€knock„notice€violation€to€justify€its€admission.Š ˆ Ų ŠĢą  ąAccording€to€the€majority,€knock„notice€rules,€unlike€the€warrant€andŠ x Č Šprobable€cause€requirements,€do€not€exist€to€protect€individualsšš€rights€to€shieldŠ p Ą Štheir€persons,€houses€and€effects€from€government€scrutiny.€They€do€not€protectŠ h ø  Šthe€sanctity€of€the€home.€Rather,€the€interests€protected€by€knock„noticeŠ `°  Šprinciples€are:€1)to€protect€life€and€limb€from€the€violence€that€may€be€provokedŠ XØ  Šby€an€unannounced€entry;€2)to€avoid€the€destruction€of€property€occasioned€by€aŠ P   Šforcible€entry;€and€3)to€protect€elements€of€privacy€and€dignity€that€might€beŠ H˜  Šadversely€affected€by€a€sudden€police€entrance€š!š€e.g.€š šthe€right€not€to€be€intrudedŠ @  Šupon€in€oneššs€nightclothesšš.€The€majority€opinion€implies€that€these€interests,Š 8ˆ Šespecially€the€last€one,€are€not€particularly€significant€or€worth€the€cost€ofŠ 0€ Šexcluding€incriminating€evidence€and€hindering€law€enforcement.Š (x ŠĢą  ąMost€importantly,€the€Court€noted€that€the€issue€of€š šwhether€theŠ h Šexclusionary€sanction€is€appropriately€imposed€in€a€particular€casešš€is€separateŠ ` Šfrom€the€question€of€whether€the€police€violated€the€defendantššs€FourthŠ X ŠAmendment€rights.€In€determining€whether€the€exclusionary€rule€should€apply,€theŠ P Škey€question€is€whether€the€š šdeterrence€benefitsšš€of€suppressing€the€discoveredŠ ųH Ševidence€outweigh€the€social€costs.€Š š@ ŠĢą  ąThe€Court€concluded€that€there€are€š šconsiderablešš€social€costs€when€theŠ ą0 Šcriminal€courts€exclude€evidence€discovered€following€a€knock„notice€violation:Š Ų( Š1)Excluding€relevant€incriminating€evidence€allows€dangerous€criminals€to€goŠ Š  Šfree.€2)Providing€this€remedy€to€criminal€defendants€encourages€š ša€constantŠ Č  Šfloodšš€of€suppression€motions€alleging€police€failure€to€comply€with€knock„noticeŠ Ą! Šrules.€3)Litigating€knock„notice€claims€is€difficult€because€the€rules€are€purposelyŠ ø" Švague.€4)To€avoid€this€litigation,€police€officers€will€wait€too€long€before€entering€aŠ °#  Šresidence,€š šproducing€preventable€violence€against€officers€in€some€cases,€andŠ Ø$ų! Šthe€destruction€of€evidence€in€many€othersšš.€Š  %š " ŠĢą  ąWeighed€against€these€major€social€costs,€applying€the€exclusionary€rule€toŠ 'ą"$ Šthe€fruits€of€knock„notice€violations€has€little€deterrent€effect:€1)Police€officersŠ ˆ(Ų#% Šarmed€with€a€lawful€search€warrant€have€little€incentive€to€violate€knock„notice€soŠ €)Š$& Šš šmassive€deterrence€is€hardly€requiredšš.€(Presumably,€the€police€donššt€want€toŠ x*Č%' Šendanger€themselves€or€others€by€bursting€in€and€provoking€a€violent€response.)Š p+Ą&( Š2)There€are€other€effective€ways€to€deter€this€type€of€police€misconduct.€VictimsŠ ° Šof€illegal€no„knock€entries€can€file€civil€suits€for€damages.€And€the€prospect€ofŠ Øų Šinternal€discipline€also€discourages€the€police€from€violating€knock„notice.Š  š Š3)Deterrence€is€not€really€necessary€as€todayššs€police€officers€are€better€trainedŠ ˜č Šand€more€professional.Š ą ŠĢņņņ ņConcurrence:ó óóóŠ € Š ŠĢą  ąIn€his€very€short€concurring€opinion,€Justice€Kennedy€emphasizes€twoŠ v Ę Špoints.€First,€the€Courtššs€opinion€should€not€be€read€as€suggesting€that€violationsŠ n ¾  Šof€constitutionally€required€knock„notice€rules€are€š štrivial€or€beyond€the€lawššsŠ f¶  Šconcernšš.€If€police€officers€persist€in€violating€the€sanctity€of€the€home€by€ignoringŠ ^®  Šthe€requisites€of€lawful€entry,€then€the€government€should€fortify€procedures€forŠ V¦  Štraining€police€officers€and€enhance€disciplinary€procedures.€These€efforts,€alongŠ Nž  Šwith€the€availability€of€civil€remedies,€should€be€sufficient€to€deter€and€punishŠ F–  Šknock„notice€violations.Š >Ž ŠĢą  ąSecond,€according€to€Justice€Kennedy,€the€Courtššs€opinion,€limitingŠ .~ Šapplication€of€the€exclusionary€rule,€applies€ņņonlyóó€to€knock„notice€violations.€š š[T]heŠ &v Šcontinued€operation€of€the€exclusionary€rule,€as€settled€and€defined€by€ourŠ n Šprecedents,€is€not€in€doubt.šš€The€exclusionary€remedy€should€not€apply€when€theŠ f Šofficers€fail€to€comply€with€knock„notice€rules€because€š šthe€causal€link€between€aŠ ^ Šviolation€of€the€knock„and„announce€requirement€and€a€later€search€is€tooŠ V Šattenuated€to€allow€suppressionšš.€The€evidence€is€discovered€not€because€of€aŠ žN Šfailure€to€knock€and€announce,€but€because€of€a€subsequent€search€conductedŠ öF Špursuant€to€a€lawful€warrant.Š ī> ŠĢņņņ ņDissentó óóóŠ Ž. ŠĢą  ąIn€a€lengthy€opinion,€authored€by€Justice€Breyer,€the€minority€offers€aŠ Ō $ Šstrong€dissent.€First,€they€note€that€the€majority€opinion€š šdestroys€the€strongestŠ Ģ! Šlegal€incentive€to€comply€with€the€Constitutionššs€knock„notice€requirementsšš.€AsŠ Ä" Šlong€recognized,€the€purpose€of€the€exclusionary€rule€is€to€discourage€the€policeŠ ¼#   Šfrom€violating€citizensšš€Fourth€Amendment€rights,€and€the€only€effective€way€toŠ “$ ! Šdeter€knock„notice€violations€is€to€suppress€evidence€seized€during€the€searchŠ ¬%ü " Šthat€follows€the€illegal€entry.€If€the€police€know€that€they€can€enter€a€homeŠ ¤&ō!# Šillegally,€without€risking€suppression€of€the€evidence€found€inside,€they€will€haveŠ œ'ģ"$ Šno€reason€to€comply€with€knock„notice€when€a€surprise€entry€would€be€tacticallyŠ ”(ä#% Šadvantageous.€No„knock€entries€will€undoubtedly€increase,€and€residents€willŠ Œ)Ü$& Šhave€no€recourse€but€to€suffer€these€invasions€upon€property€and€privacy.Š „*Ō%' ŠŠ |+Ģ&( Šą  ąThe€vague€prospect€of€civil€damage€lawsuits€is€neither€a€reasonableŠ ° Šdisincentive€to€police€misconduct€nor€a€viable€remedy€for€victimized€homeŠ Øų Šoccupants.€Justice€Breyer€notes€that€š š[t]he€cases€reporting€knock„and„announceŠ  š Šviolations€are€legion....sufficiently€frequent€and€serious€to€indicate€a€widespreadŠ ˜č Špatternšš.€Yet€the€majority€failed€to€turn€up€a€single€reported€case€š šin€which€aŠ ą Šplaintiff€has€collected€more€than€nominal€damagesšš€by€claiming€a€knock„noticeŠ ˆ Ų Šviolation.€Indeed,€as€the€government€conceded,€in€most€cases€damages€may€beŠ € Š Švirtually€non„existent.€Civil€actions€are€expensive,€time„consuming,€not€readilyŠ x Č Šavailable,€and€rarely€successful.Š p Ą ŠĢą  ąSecond,€the€dissenting€opinion€notes€that€Justice€Scalia€minimizes€theŠ `°  Šinterests€protected€by€knock„notice€rules.€These€rules€exist€not€only€to€protectŠ XØ  Šhomeowners€from€damaged€doors€and€to€protect€occupants€from€surprise€andŠ P   Šthe€indignity€of€being€š šintruded€upon€in€oneššs€nightclothesšš.€The€rules€protect€coreŠ H˜  ŠFourth€Amendment€values€š!š€the€sanctity€of€oneššs€home€and€the€privacies€of€life.Š @  ŠĢą  ąThird,€Justice€Breyer€states€that€the€majority€opinion€is€š šdoubly€troubling€asŠ 0€ Šit€represents€a€significant€departure€from€the€Courtššs€precedents€in€two€areas.Š (x ŠThe€majority€breaks€with€a€long€line€of€precedent€affirming€the€historicalŠ  p Šimportance€of€knock„notice€requirements€š!š€rules€that€date€back€to€the€13ņņthóó€centuryŠ h Šand€have€been€recognized€as€having€constitutional€import.€As€the€Court€affirmedŠ ` Šjust€11€years€ago,€in€ņņWilson€v.€Arkansasóó€(1995)€514€U.S.€927,€929,€the€š šcommonŠ X Šlaw€knock€and€announce€principle€forms€part€of€the€reasonableness€inquiry€underŠ P Šthe€Fourth€Amendmentšš.€Failure€to€comply€with€these€rules€renders€theŠ ųH Šsubsequent€search€and€seizure€constitutionally€defective.€€Š š@ ŠĢą  ąThe€majority€ruling€is€also€inconsistent€with€prior€cases€defining€theŠ ą0 Špurpose€and€scope€of€the€exclusionary€rule.€In€the€past,€the€Court€has€declined€toŠ Ų( Šapply€the€exclusionary€rule€only€when€suppression€of€the€evidence€would€notŠ Š  Šresult€in€appreciable€deterrence€š!š€e.g.€when€the€police€officer€relies€on€aŠ Č  Šdefective€warrant€in€good€faith;€or€when€the€prosecution€proffers€the€evidence€inŠ Ą! Šproceedings€other€than€criminal€trials.€Neither€of€these€exceptions€apply€when€anŠ ø" Šofficer€knowingly€violates€knock„notice€requirements€and€the€governmentŠ °#  Šintroduces€the€subsequently€seized€evidence€at€the€defendantššs€criminal€trial.Š Ø$ų! ŠĢą  ąFinally,€the€dissenting€opinion€warns€that€Justice€Scaliaššs€analysis€will€likelyŠ ˜&č!# Šlead€to€denying€the€exclusionary€remedy€to€defendants€who€have€suffered€otherŠ 'ą"$ ŠFourth€Amendment€violations.€Scalia€found€that€considerable€social€costs€ofŠ ˆ(Ų#% Šapplying€the€exclusionary€rule€to€knock„notice€violations€outweigh€the€deterrenceŠ €)Š$& Šbenefits.€But€the€considerable€social€costs€cited€by€Scalia€exist€in€every€criminalŠ x*Č%' Šcase€when€illegally€seized€evidence€is€suppressed.€In€every€case€š šwhere€theŠ p+Ą&( Šconstable€blunders,€a€guilty€defendant€may€be€set€freešš,€and€the€litigation€ofŠ ° ŠFourth€Amendment€claims€often€requires€judicial€interpretation€of€uncertain€rulesŠ Øų Š(e.g.€the€existence€of€exigent€circumstances).€Moreover,€if€the€prospect€of€civilŠ  š Šsuits€are€adequate€to€deter€police€violations€of€knock„notice,€wouldnššt€theseŠ ˜č Špotential€suits€also€effectively€discourage€other€types€of€police€misconduct?Š ą ŠĢņņņ ņWhat€are€the€short„term€and€long„term€effects€on€this€opinion?ó óóóŠ € Š ŠĢą  ąThe€immediate€impact€of€the€ņņHudsonóó€opinion€is€obvious.€A€criminalŠ v Ę Šdefendant€can€no€longer€raise€a€knock„notice€violation€claim€in€a€motion€toŠ n ¾  Šsuppress€evidence.€Moreover,€the€opinion€surely€takes€the€teeth€out€of€knock„Š f¶  Šnotice€enforcement.€As€Justice€Breyer€states€in€the€dissenting€opinion:€š šTodayššsŠ ^®  Šopinion.....€weakens,€perhaps€destroys,€much€of€the€practical€value€of€theŠ V¦  ŠConstitutionššs€knock„and„announce€protectionšš.€If€evidence€discovered€followingŠ Nž  Šan€illegal€entry€will€be€admitted€at€a€criminal€trial,€police€officers€will€have€littleŠ F–  Šreason€to€knock,€announce€their€presence€and€wait€several€seconds€beforeŠ >Ž Šbursting€in.€As€the€dissenting€justices€noted,€the€theoretical€possibility€of€civilŠ 6† Šlawsuits€or€internal€police€discipline,€sometime€in€the€future,€will€not€assureŠ .~ Šcompliance.€Knock„notice€rules€are€effectively€dead.Š &v ŠĢą  ąAgain,€as€the€dissent€notes,€this€radical€step€was€not€really€necessary.Š f ŠOver€the€years,€the€courts€has€already€expanded€exceptions€to€strict€knock„noticeŠ ^ Šcompliance.€š šSubstantialšš€compliance€is€sufficient€and€the€police€do€not€have€toŠ V Šknock,€give€notice,€or€wait€more€than€15€to€20€seconds€if€they€reasonably€believeŠ žN Šthat€it€would€be€dangerous€or€futile€or€that€evidence€might€be€destroyed.Š öF ŠĢą  ąThe€most€troubling€aspect€of€the€opinion€is€that€it€undoubtedly€opens€theŠ ę6 Šdoor€to€further€incursions€on€the€reach€of€the€exclusionary€rule.€Eight€years€ago,Š Ž. ŠJustice€Thomas€bemoaned€the€exclusionary€ruleššs€š šcostly€toil€upon€truth„seekingŠ Ö& Šand€law€enforcement€objectivesšš.€(ņņPennsylvania€Bd.€of€Probation€and€Parole€v.Š Ī  ŠScottóó€(1998)€524€U.S.€357,€364„65.)€The€Courtššs€conservative€majority€have€nowŠ Ę! Šdecided€that€the€cost€is€too€high€for€a€mere€knock„notice€violation.€But€the€testŠ ¾" Šthat€Justice€Scalia€applies€š!š€whether€the€deterrence€benefits€of€the€exclusionaryŠ ¶#  Šrule€outweighs€it€substantial€social€costs€š!š€could€weigh€against€suppression€ofŠ ®$ž! Šillegally€seized€evidence€in€other€contexts.€The€number€one€social€cost,€cited€byŠ ¦%ö " ŠScalia,€is€š šthe€risk€of€releasing€dangerous€criminals€into€societyšš.€As€ScaliaŠ ž&ī!# Šacknowledges,€this€risk€exists€in€every€case€when€incriminating€evidence€isŠ –'ę"$ Šexcluded€because€of€a€police€officer€acted€unlawfully.€And€the€other€š šcostsšš€citedŠ Ž(Ž#% Šby€Scalia€are€equally€pervasive.€Itššs€hard€to€think€of€a€case€where€suppressingŠ †)Ö$& Ševidence€discovered€following€an€illegal€entry,€search€or€seizure€does€notŠ ~*Ī%' Šgenerate€these€potential€š šcostsšš.Š v+Ę&( Їą  ąMoreover,€the€majority€clearly€believes€the€exclusionary€rule€is€no€longerŠ ° Šnecessary€to€discourage€police€misconduct.€In€todayššs€society,€according€toŠ Øų ŠJustice€Scalia,€we€have€a€well„trained,€professional€and€disciplined€police€forceŠ  š Šwho€are€unlikely€to€deviate€from€lawful€procedures.€We€also€have€the€readyŠ ˜č Šavailability€of€section€1983€civil€rights€lawsuits,€offering€the€prospect€ofŠ ą Šš šmeaningful€reliefšš€if€the€police€abuse€their€power.€If€the€exclusionary€rule€is€notŠ ˆ Ų Šneeded€to€discourage€the€police€from€no„knock€entries,€then€itššs€similarly€notŠ € Š Šneeded€to€discourage€officers€from€proceeding€without€a€warrant€or€reasonableŠ x Č Šcause.€I€think€itššs€fair€to€expect€further€limitations€on€the€scope€of€the€exclusionaryŠ p Ą Šrule€in€other€Fourth€Amendment€contexts.Š h ø  ŠĢą  ąOf€course,€one€must€acknowledge€a€small€ray€of€hope.€In€his€concurringŠ XØ  Šopinion,€Justice€Kennedy€aimed€to€quiet€the€fears€of€those€who€believed€theŠ P   Šmajority€ruling€was€the€first€step€down€the€proverbial€slippery€slope.€He€statedŠ H˜  Šthat€the€exclusionary€rule€is€still€alive€and€well€and€that€š š[t]odayššs€decisionsŠ @  Šdetermines€only€that€in€the€specific€context€of€a€knock„and„announceŠ 8ˆ Šrequirement,€a€violation€is€not€sufficiently€related€to€the€later€discovery€ofŠ 0€ Ševidence€to€justify€suppressionšš.€So€perhaps€in€the€next€case,€when€theŠ (x Šgovernment€argues€against€applying€the€exclusionary€rule€to€evidence€seizedŠ  p Šfollowing€another€type€of€Fourth€Amendment€violation€(e.g.€a€warrantless€searchŠ h Šor€a€suspicionless€detention),€Justice€Kennedy€will€join€with€the€four€dissentingŠ ` Šjustices€(Justices€Breyer,€Stevens,€Souter€and€Ginsberg)€to€hold€the€line.Š X ŠĢą  ąFinally,€this€opinion€clearly€reflects€both€the€divided€nature€of€the€court€andŠ ųH Šthe€effects€of€Justice€OššConnorššs€departure.€ņņHudsonóó€was€first€argued€in€JanuaryŠ š@ Š2006,€after€Justice€OššConnorššs€announced€retirement€but€before€Justice€AlitoššsŠ č8 Šconfirmation.€Initial€reports,€the€day€after€the€argument,€inferred€from€OššConnorššsŠ ą0 Šquestions€that€she€seemed€ready€to€rule€against€the€government.€But€OššConnorŠ Ų( Šleft€the€Court€before€this€case€was€decided.€Because€the€justices€were€apparentlyŠ Š  Šdivided€four„four€without€OššConnor,€the€case€was€re„argued€in€May€after€JusticeŠ Č  ŠAlito€had€taken€his€seat.€Alito€signed€onto€the€majority€opinion,€in€the€ultimateŠ Ą! Šfive„four€result.€Perhaps€the€outcome€would€have€been€different€if€JusticeŠ ø" ŠOššConnor€were€still€on€the€Court.Š °#  ŠĢą  ąĢĢą  ą