Court Opinion

ID: 9459931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:35:45.732343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:24.039279
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I dissent from the order for en banc. At issue is the retroactivity of Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 411 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 1531, 36 L.Ed.2d 192 (1973). Also involved in Bowen under Almeidcc-Sanchez is the status of an intermittent but fixed checkpoint.
*1389I would let the panel, [9 Cir., 462 F.2d 347] decide the case. None of the earmarks of the normal case for en banc are here.
It is inescapable that the Supreme Court will decide the questions here. They are too big and too far reaching for that Court to ignore them.
This en banc hearing results in about a three-months’ delay in the case getting to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, two or three district courts are almost choked with the retroactive question. Thus, knowing our decision means little in this instance, I was prepared to live with any decision the panel might render.
Taking this case en banc is simply flying off into the air without a payload.