Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: February 20, 2018
Decided: May 29, 2018
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Vote
Per curiam[1]


City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on February 20, 2018. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Former police officer Matthew Vogt filed a civil suit alleging that his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination was violated when his statements, obtained during an internal police investigation, were used in a criminal probable cause hearing. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed, ruling that the Fifth Amendment applied during probable cause hearings to the same extent it applied at trial.
  • The issue: "Whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when statements are used at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial."[2]
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court issued a one-sentence opinion dismissing the appeal "as improvidently granted," which allowed the Tenth Circuit's opinion to stand.[3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about the scope of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

    The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Generally, the protection means that no one can be forced to testify against themselves. The question in this case was whether that protection only applies to evidence offered during a criminal trial or whether it also applies to evidence offered during pretrial proceedings, namely, during probable cause hearings. Specifically, the issue was whether a probable cause hearing falls within the definition of a criminal case.[4]

    A probable cause hearing is a pretrial proceeding that occurs after criminal charges have been filed against someone. Typically, the hearing requires the prosecutor to show a valid basis for having arrested the defendant. If the court agrees that the prosecutor has shown probable cause, the case may proceed to trial.[4]

    Case background

    Matthew Vogt worked as a police officer for the city of Hays, Kansas. In 2013, he applied to become a police officer for the city of Hayville, Kansas. In the course of the application process, "Vogt disclosed that he had kept a knife obtained in the course of his work as a Hays police officer."[4] The Hayville police department offered Vogt the position, but on the condition that Vogt inform the Hays police department about the knife and turn it over to them.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

    When Vogt reported to the Hays police department that he had kept the knife, the Hays police chief ordered Vogt to submit a report about the knife. Vogt offered notice that he planned to take the position with the Hayville police department and later submitted a one-sentence report about the knife. The Hays police chief opened an internal investigation into Vogt's possession of the knife and required Vogt to offer a longer explanation. The Hays police chief later asked the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to open a criminal investigation. As a result of the criminal investigation, the Hayville police department withdrew its job offer to Vogt and Vogt was charged with two felonies. The district court held a probable cause hearing, found probable cause lacking, and then dismissed the charges against Vogt.[4]

    Vogt then filed suit against Hays, Hayville, and several individual officers. He alleged that the use of his statements regarding the knife to support the investigation, the filed criminal charges, and the prosecution at the probable cause hearing violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[4]

    Panel opinion

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that the use of Vogt's statements in the probable cause hearing violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The court first explained:

    “ The Fifth Amendment protects individuals against compulsion to incriminate themselves 'in any criminal case.' U.S. Const. amend.V. This amendment prohibits compulsion of law enforcement officers to make self-incriminating statements in the course of employment. As a law enforcement officer, Mr. Vogt enjoyed protection under the Fifth Amendment against use of his compelled statements in a criminal case.[4][5] ”

    The court then reviewed the United States Supreme Court precedent, concluding, "The U.S. Supreme Court has not conclusively defined the scope of a 'criminal case' under the Fifth Amendment."[4] The court reviewed the legislative history of the Fifth Amendment. Looking at the legislative history that led to the inclusion of the term "criminal case," the court ruled that it was included to distinguish criminal liability from civil liability and make clear that the protection against self-incrimination applied to criminal liability. The court further concluded that, based on the legislative history, "There was a consensus that the right against self-incrimination was not limited to a suspect’s own trial. To the contrary, the historical sources show that the right against self-accusation was understood to arise primarily in pretrial or pre-prosecution settings rather than in the context of a person’s own criminal trial."[4][6] The court ruled that the right against self-incrimination applied in pretrial proceedings, including probable cause hearings.[4]

    Petitioner's challenge

    The petitioner, the city of Hays, challenged the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The city argued that the protection against self-incrimination only applies during trial.[2]

    Certiorari granted

    On June 13, 2017, the petitioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted petitioner's request for certiorari on September 28, 2017. Argument in the case was held on February 20, 2018.[2]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "The Self-Incrimination Clause provides that '[ n]o person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' As the court below recognized, a 'circuit split [has] developed' over whether certain pretrial uses of compelled statements force a person 'to be a witness against himself' within the meaning of that provision. Pet. App. 6a. The question presented is: Whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when statements are used at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial."[2]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument: [8]

    Outcome

    Decision and opinion of the court

    The Supreme Court issued a one-sentence opinion dismissing the appeal. The decision read, "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." This order left the case in the same place it would have been if the court had refused to hear the appeal in the first place: the opinion of the Tenth Circuit stood, but the Supreme Court did not affirm that opinion.[3]

    Dismissed as improvidently granted is sometimes abbreviated as DIG. A reporter at SCOTUSblog, a website that covers Supreme Court proceedings, wrote, "At argument, [Justice] Breyer ultimately wondered 'whether this is, in fact, an appropriate case … for the Court to take.' Vogt, having won below, quickly embraced this as a DIG suggestion. With Justice Neil Gorsuch recused, the eight remaining justices, after three months of internal deliberations that we can only guess at, have now agreed with that disposition and dismissed the case without any discussion of the merits."[9]

    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Justice Gorsuch did not take part in the case.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt" Question Presented, September 28, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 "City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt Opinion," May 29, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, "City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt" Opinion, January 4, 2017
    5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt, argued February 20, 2018
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt," argued February 20, 2018
    9. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Opinion analysis: A DIG in Vogt," May 29, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=City_of_Hays,_Kansas_v._Vogt&oldid=8891596"