[http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/MF_MFMS_RibbonAccentTL.png] IMLA Legal News [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/MF_MFMS_RibbonAccentTR.png] [http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs104/1111165842025/img/5.gif] [https://imgssl.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/MF_MFMS_Shadow.png] Supreme Court Decides Two Cases Relevant to Local Government Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued six new opinions, two of which are relevant to local government. In San Francisco v. Sheehan, the Court held that the police officers who were faced with an armed, violent, mentally ill suspect who had already made death threats to three people did not violate clearly established law when they entered the suspect's residence instead of trying to accommodate her disability and that they were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also issued its opinion in Comptroller v. Wynne, holding that Maryland's tax scheme was unconstitutional and violated the dormant Commerce Clause. IMLA participated as an amicus in both cases at both the petition stage and the merits stage. City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan In this case, two officers were called by a social worker to take Sheehan into custody for an involuntary mental evaluation after Sheehan had threatened to kill the social worker with a knife. When the officers arrived, they opened the door to Sheehan's residence and she threatened to kill them as well, brandishing the knife. They left the residence and called for backup. However, they then made the determination to reenter her residence before backup arrived to effectuate the arrest in order to prevent Sheehan from harming herself or others. When they reentered, Sheehan rushed them with a knife. The officers tried to use pepper spray to stop her and when she kept coming at them with the knife, they shot her several times. She survived and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the ADA. The Court granted certiorari on two issues: (1) whether the ADA requires police officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of an arrest; and (2) whether it was clearly established for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment that even where an exception to the warrant requirement applied, an entry into a residence could be unreasonable by reason of the anticipated resistance of an armed and violent suspect within the residence. The Court dismissed the first issue regarding the ADA as improvidently granted. Regarding the Fourth Amendment issue, the Court noted that the "real question" was "whether, despite these dangerous circumstances, the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they decided to reopen Sheehan's door rather than attempting to accommodate her disability." Despite having reframed the question presented on the Fourth Amendment issue, the Court declined to rule on this constitutional question - i.e., whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the suspect's home the second time rather than attempting to accommodate her disability. The Court instead, rested its holding on the fact that the law was not clearly established at the time of the events, thereby entitling the officers to qualified immunity. In so holding, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit, admonishing that court that it has "repeatedly told courts - and the Ninth Circuit in particular - not to define clearly established at a high level of generality...Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if 'clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." The Court explained that under the circumstances, a reasonable officer could have concluded that the second entry into Sheehan's home was justified both under the continuous search rationale and the exigent circumstances rationale. To read the Court's opinion, click here<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Wakx3xqHjWXg9ydPiB5T98ghQpcPEO_rMGTHq2fBuWHSyMiapjp0FlKReulzXc_0ogbD1MjQ8khlR0Qa69gOx4h_9zivlaRjQjTPd9VVdIKgszseNg-b4zXHsrmjeXztjMhQcdOsVRqfxW21HoZ3dpQD4PBJ0TLauT9feDqUenoHHFYk6xsmr3ng0Ih5F-_7v46cBVMMi8S_vAUC2u2TK26d0Qdlh4QV&c=LYZeK-KWxy5_XTKgwrXXcfFcLKgrjcSoa6FUnmfuPZJNw-Bk5-EBFQ==&ch=M4Chwux00c46i3fI96QngUXZ0YtPa51TSnSfivIs_qT8bX5DU3UDNg==> Comptroller v. Wynne At issue in the case was Maryland's tax scheme, which included a personal income tax on state residents for state income tax as well as a county income tax. Maryland provides residents who pay income tax to another jurisdiction for income earned in that other jurisdiction a credit against state taxes, but Maryland does not provide a credit for the county tax. Nonresidents who earn income from sources within Maryland must pay the state income tax as well as a "special" nonresident tax in lieu of the county tax. The result of Maryland's tax structure is that some Maryland residents who earn income outside the state may be subject to so-called double taxation because a credit is only offered on the state tax not on the county tax. In a 5-4 opinion, writing for a sharply divided Court, Justice Alito concluded that Maryland's personal income tax scheme violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The majority concluded that Maryland's tax scheme creates a risk of double taxation, is inherently discriminatory and that it fails the "internal consistency" test. The majority noted that the state's tax scheme operates as a "tariff," which the Court concluded is "fatal because tariffs are the paradigmatic example of law discriminating against interstate commerce." (internal quotations omitted) The Court explained that Maryland's tax scheme "fails the internal consistency test because if every State adopted Maryland's tax structure, interstate commerce would be taxed at a higher rate than intrastate commerce." The majority also concluded that the Court's existing dormant Commerce Clause cases "all but dictate the result" in the case as they have "invalidated state tax schemes that might lead to double taxation of out-of-state income and that discriminated in favor of intrastate over interstate economic activity." The Court brushed aside arguments made by the Solicitor General (which were also advanced by IMLA and other state and local government groups) that residents of a county reap the benefits of local government services, like schools, roads, and police and fire services, and a state should therefore have the ability to tax the income of residents for those services, regardless of where that income was earned. This case resulted in three dissents and in the principal dissent, Justice Ginsburg argued that it is well-established that states have the authority to tax all of their resident's income, wherever earned and that it is a policy decision that should be left to the states and Congress to decide whether they want to offer tax credits for income that is taxed by other states. She concluded her dissent by quipping that the Court is ill equipped to resolve competing tax policy issues. To read the Court's opinion, click here<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Wakx3xqHjWXg9ydPiB5T98ghQpcPEO_rMGTHq2fBuWHSyMiapjp0FlKReulzXc_0TNZGDHAgT3kgo-kOelZugp0-fDXFVxIegJs-jMVtSgKayKageB5kL_r12eht_jWOgMhlIkwJ24eK1Ei6DgFc_Qz8TjM7vHfhS2-2XduaYsi75c_bjojbFgy_YoWNmA19IsSZG_O9hDiN9_aWNtR-KQ9yE8gwQxG7&c=LYZeK-KWxy5_XTKgwrXXcfFcLKgrjcSoa6FUnmfuPZJNw-Bk5-EBFQ==&ch=M4Chwux00c46i3fI96QngUXZ0YtPa51TSnSfivIs_qT8bX5DU3UDNg==>. [https://imgssl.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/MF_MFMS_Shadow.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/MF_MFMS_RibbonAccentBL.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/MF_MFMS_RibbonAccentBR.png] IMLA Legal Advocacy<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Wakx3xqHjWXg9ydPiB5T98ghQpcPEO_rMGTHq2fBuWHSyMiapjp0FsSxGc88sft-BaULAHUJtZmP-ankAYys3hpxCRvQZu7PHxZxKQbAbNu4H2o3XGow3W-71iNQvm9Mu9GISeV9TIuDMsJ1BVBiIC2JKGRxUoqtTKgJzyDZy2iLcrC9ZEO9PoTBT9ZbhlQs&c=LYZeK-KWxy5_XTKgwrXXcfFcLKgrjcSoa6FUnmfuPZJNw-Bk5-EBFQ==&ch=M4Chwux00c46i3fI96QngUXZ0YtPa51TSnSfivIs_qT8bX5DU3UDNg==> [Like us on Facebook]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Wakx3xqHjWXg9ydPiB5T98ghQpcPEO_rMGTHq2fBuWHSyMiapjp0Fv3xQSfdbql6QwAmvxbdpw-UUiDDfWUEA3pu5ZyLl1YDMDbKaCjCcEUJPSLQCVDMvE0G850yk3nIdee_5pncIhudrHjKSlMUXQuZ3KDg7u3bY4zWljahMyz11Om8wkJvq9VzlPiNg_LRXwCQ6f5c-JIB-TNrtyNXpw==&c=LYZeK-KWxy5_XTKgwrXXcfFcLKgrjcSoa6FUnmfuPZJNw-Bk5-EBFQ==&ch=M4Chwux00c46i3fI96QngUXZ0YtPa51TSnSfivIs_qT8bX5DU3UDNg==>[Follow us on Twitter]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Wakx3xqHjWXg9ydPiB5T98ghQpcPEO_rMGTHq2fBuWHSyMiapjp0FgWtx7r3XpbpTgxtmJtoMDjKKMmRdpeTjypyu0wsDPmAmp6-OnZeLXqY5OW8OtjMVkSz0pgZ-_DKjociqa8T0zTzsf3sBgpTvaUh0gaWP7WzPRNDvJBONVTs2l3IHfBvDw==&c=LYZeK-KWxy5_XTKgwrXXcfFcLKgrjcSoa6FUnmfuPZJNw-Bk5-EBFQ==&ch=M4Chwux00c46i3fI96QngUXZ0YtPa51TSnSfivIs_qT8bX5DU3UDNg==>[View our profile on LinkedIn]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Wakx3xqHjWXg9ydPiB5T98ghQpcPEO_rMGTHq2fBuWHSyMiapjp0FvII_bQ_2WD4qaq9g_3LvmbqZxcxfV4HY5RGMipsRfepYI1WgV3FqRdsQ4gYJo96BgRZfdPd5givKbIqFEmG7G7pOTGiQZ3NKbCYt6xd4YD7Oby-Ppz-j7NX9imhpoyx9M0Z2foOXTU9cI-7jAzUNFlgnWPVkZuHrjxRWnI3HbnFLpt4HLHYs6k=&c=LYZeK-KWxy5_XTKgwrXXcfFcLKgrjcSoa6FUnmfuPZJNw-Bk5-EBFQ==&ch=M4Chwux00c46i3fI96QngUXZ0YtPa51TSnSfivIs_qT8bX5DU3UDNg==> [Join Our Mailing List]<http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?m=1111165842025&p=oi> Forward this email<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=jtmkk8kab&m=1111165842025&ea=cthompson%40imla.org&a=1121114998057> [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/SafeUnsubscribe_Footer_Logo_New.png]<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=001nEsTKPj1PRQ6p70GckskWQ%3D%3D&ch=5d664a00-bfd9-11e3-a93b-d4ae527599c4&ca=69bc8463-3a28-4b57-9cc9-ffba5df4a65c> This email was sent to cthompson@imla.org<mailto:cthompson@imla.org> by chuckthompson@imla.org<mailto:chuckthompson@imla.org> | Update Profile/Email Address<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=001nEsTKPj1PRQ6p70GckskWQ%3D%3D&ch=5d664a00-bfd9-11e3-a93b-d4ae527599c4&ca=69bc8463-3a28-4b57-9cc9-ffba5df4a65c> | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=001nEsTKPj1PRQ6p70GckskWQ%3D%3D&ch=5d664a00-bfd9-11e3-a93b-d4ae527599c4&ca=69bc8463-3a28-4b57-9cc9-ffba5df4a65c>™ | Privacy Policy<http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>. [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/CC_Footer_Logo_New.png]<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=MF_MFMS> IMLA | 7910 Woodmont Avenue | Suite 1440 | Bethesda | MD | 20814 ________________________________ Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=0cOtQm2bX&m=610d9fecb0c6&t=20150519&c=s> Phish/Fraud<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=0cOtQm2bX&m=610d9fecb0c6&t=20150519&c=p> Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=0cOtQm2bX&m=610d9fecb0c6&t=20150519&c=n> Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=0cOtQm2bX&m=610d9fecb0c6&t=20150519&c=f>