[dylan604]

Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged. What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement? If the 4 examples pale to the new number, I'd be willing to say always myself

[jcranmer]

Scrolling through the decisions since Ginsburg was replaced with Barret, the cases that dealt with police have gone as follows:

* Lange v. California (police in hot pursuit of a suspect conduct warrantless entry) 9-0 in favor of the suspect

* United States v. Cooley 9-0 that tribal officers can stop non-natives on tribal land. Technically pro-police, but this really isn't so much a police issue as tribal sovereignty issue.

* Taylor v. Riojas 7-1 correctional officers did not in fact hold qualified immunity

In general, recent SCOTUS decisions have generally tended to land in favor of criminal defendants with regards to 4th Amendment violations. However, where SCOTUS has tended to land strongly against criminal defendants is in regards to post-conviction reconsideration, e.g. something like https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-....

[Clubber]

>Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged.

Yes, but I've been following legal decisions since it was obvious there were severe issues with many local jurisdictions. The current SCOTUS seems to be pretty strong regarding rights lately, Roe being the exception.

>What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement?

I dunno, maybe point out some recent decisions you don't like, lets discuss them.

[check89]

> Roe being the exception.

What do you mean?