Environmental Sentencing: Its Bark Is Worse Than Its Bite — Should We Care?

I have a new paper on SSRN about the sentencing of environmental offenders.  The title is “Bark and Bite: The Environmental Sentencing Guidelines after Booker.”  Using date collected by the United States Sentencing Commission, I show that judges sentence below the range recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines in an unusually high percentage of environmental cases, approaching sixty percent in some years.

Many environmentalists are apt to bristle at the apparent demonstration that federal judges are “soft” on environmental crime.  Given how little the government must prove to get an environmental conviction, however — prosecutors need not show either harm to the environment or an intent to harm the environment — I am not convinced that judges really are devaluing the environment through their sentencing decisions.  Still, I think the data warrant a rethinking of the environmental guidelines in order to give them more credibility with judges.

Here is the abstract: 

Continue ReadingEnvironmental Sentencing: Its Bark Is Worse Than Its Bite — Should We Care?

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week

By the default, the title “Case of the Week” must go to the only new opinion of the week: United States v. Gooden (No. 08-3240).  And even Gooden only barely qualifies, as the opinion is merely a slightly amended version of an earlier opinion in the case (noted in my post here).  The only difference I can see in the amended opinion is a clarification that the notice requirements of Rule 32(h) do not apply to post-Booker variances per the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Irizarry v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008).

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week

The One-Month Anniversary of Arizona v. Gant: A Sign of Things to Come

Although we have not yet seen the flurry of end-of-term opinions sure to emerge from the Supreme Court in June, few are likely to gain as much immediate attention as Arizona v. Gant, in which the Court imposed new Fourth Amendment limitations on the ability of police officers to search vehicles.  The CrimProf listserve has been buzzing about Gant since the opinion came out, and now we are beginning to see the first signs of fallout in the lower courts.  Rising 3L Brent Simerson sent me the following insightful comments about the significance of Gant, for which I am grateful:

As one might expect, the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Arizona v. Gant has triggered changes in the way police officers and attorneys must analyze warrantless searches incident to a lawful arrest in the vehicle context.  Professor Jon Deitrich provided several interesting observations about the opinion itself in a post last week.  The Court held that police officers may “search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.”  This holding narrowed the Court’s prior holdings in Chimel v. California and New York v. Belton, which were largely interpreted by lower courts as permitting vehicular searches incident to a lawful arrest regardless of how improbable it was that the arrestee could access the automobile.  Gant will undoubtedly constrict law enforcement’s hitherto broad authority to search vehicles incident to lawful arrest, see United States v. Majette, No. 08-4427, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9267 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2009) (conviction vacated pursuant to Gant), but it is too soon to describe how courts will answer tough questions presented by Gant‘s requirements: What constitutes a “secured” arrestee?  May police officers circumscribe the spirit of Gant by directing the unsecured arrestee to remain within reaching distance of the passenger compartments?  These fact-sensitive questions will take time to resolve.

Continue ReadingThe One-Month Anniversary of Arizona v. Gant: A Sign of Things to Come