Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A law enforcement officer in Ohio stopped a driver after observing multiple traffic violations. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer noticed drug paraphernalia and received a suspicious learner’s permit from the driver, whose appearance did not match the permit’s photo. Further investigation revealed that the passenger did have a valid driver’s license despite initially indicating otherwise. During questioning about drugs, the officer observed a firearm in the car, which led to a search that uncovered fentanyl and other drug-related materials. The driver was ultimately indicted on charges including possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio oversaw pretrial proceedings marked by the defendant’s attempts to change counsel and disputes regarding acceptance of responsibility in plea negotiations. The district court made statements suggesting it would not grant credit for acceptance of responsibility in any plea, even when plea negotiations remained open. A jury convicted the defendant on all charges, and after evidence surfaced that the defendant continued drug activity while detained, the district court denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and sentenced him to a total of 420 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed several claims, including improper judicial participation in plea negotiations, denial of a suppression motion, the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute as applied, career offender status, and the timing of resentencing. The Sixth Circuit held that although the district court violated Rule 11(c)(1) by improperly participating in plea discussions, the error was harmless because the defendant was not prejudiced. The court also affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, upheld the constitutionality of the firearm conviction, agreed with the career offender classification, and found no reversible error in the resentencing process. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "United States v. Hoover" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours, a police officer in Indianapolis heard gunfire and observed muzzle flashes coming from a black truck driven by Facundo Ramos-Osario. The officer initiated a traffic stop, and another officer arrived to assist. Ramos-Osario, the driver, was removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and subjected to sobriety tests, which indicated intoxication. He later consented to a chemical test confirming a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit. Ramos-Osario was charged with operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of .08 or more and operating while intoxicated, both as Class C misdemeanors.Before trial in Marion Superior Court, Ramos-Osario moved to suppress the evidence from the stop, arguing it was unconstitutional under both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution. After a suppression hearing, where the officer who conducted the stop testified about his observations, the magistrate found the stop constitutional and denied the motion. At Ramos-Osario’s bench trial, a different judge presided, and only the assisting officer testified. Ramos-Osario objected to the introduction of evidence from the stop, contending the State had not established reasonable suspicion at trial. The objections were overruled, and Ramos-Osario was convicted. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the State failed to establish the stop’s constitutionality at trial since the suppression hearing evidence was not incorporated.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the State is not required to prove constitutional compliance a second time at trial if it has already done so at a pretrial suppression hearing. The trial and appellate courts may consider both suppression hearing evidence and trial evidence when evaluating constitutional compliance. The Court affirmed Ramos-Osario’s conviction, finding the stop did not violate his state or federal constitutional rights. View "Ramos-Osario v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

A group of inmates incarcerated within Alabama’s state prison system filed a class action challenging the adequacy of mental health care provided by the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). The plaintiffs, who suffer from serious mental illnesses, alleged that overcrowding, understaffing, and a series of systemic failures resulted in constitutionally deficient mental health services, contributing to a suicide rate far above the national average. Key alleged deficiencies included improper identification and classification of mental health needs, inadequate treatment plans, insufficient psychotherapy, lack of proper suicide risk management, improper use of segregation for mentally ill inmates, and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions for manifestations of mental illness.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama managed the litigation in multiple phases. After a seven-week bench trial, the court found the ADOC liable under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to inmates’ serious mental health needs. The court then held extensive remedial proceedings, including further hearings and negotiations, and entered a comprehensive, system-wide remedial injunction. The court made detailed factual findings and, to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), issued particularized findings that the relief ordered was necessary, narrowly drawn, and the least intrusive means to remedy the constitutional violations. The court also adopted a monitoring plan to ensure compliance, involving external experts and a transition to internal oversight.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s liability findings and most aspects of the remedial and monitoring orders, holding that system-wide relief was appropriate given the systemic nature of the violations. However, the appellate court reversed certain remedial provisions where it found the relief exceeded what was necessary to correct the constitutional violations, particularly with respect to suicide-proofing cells and some staffing requirements, and as applied to a women’s facility where violations were not established. The case was remanded for modification in those limited respects. View "Braggs v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

A maximum security prison in Virginia faced a surge in near-fatal drug overdoses among inmates in May and June 2023. In response, prison officials implemented a policy requiring every inmate who accessed the no-contact video visitation rooms to undergo a strip search both before and after each visit. Marcus Ingram, an inmate who used these rooms to call his wife, was subjected to 26 strip searches in a single month as a result. The policy was based on uncorroborated tips from inmates suggesting that contraband was being circulated through these rooms, despite no evidence of any actual contraband being found in connection with the video visitation rooms.Ingram filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against the prison warden and the officer who conducted most of the searches. He alleged violations of his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights, along with a claim of supervisory liability against the warden. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity, holding that the searches were reasonable due to the drug problem and that there was no evidence of harassment or intimidation. The court also dismissed the supervisory liability claim as there was no underlying constitutional violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit assumed without deciding that some of the strip searches may have violated the Fourth Amendment. However, it held that the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, as neither controlling precedent nor a consensus of persuasive authority made the unconstitutionality of the policy beyond debate. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the defendants. View "Ingram v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

A man drove his truck through an alley at night and ran over two people who were sleeping under a blanket, resulting in one death and one serious injury. After being told by a witness that he had run over people, he denied it and drove away. Police later located him at his home, noting signs of alcohol consumption. Brown was charged with leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death and serious bodily injury, as well as being a habitual criminal based on prior convictions.The District Court of Colorado presided over his trial. The jury was instructed on the elements of leaving the scene offenses but was not required to find any culpable mental state, such as knowledge or intent, for these crimes. Brown was convicted by the jury of both offenses, and the judge, not the jury, made the habitual offender finding, which resulted in an enhanced sentence. Brown appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing the absence of a culpable mental state in the jury instructions was erroneous and that the habitual offender statute was unconstitutional because a judge, not a jury, determined facts increasing his sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence, relying on existing precedent.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case. It held that its prior decision in People v. Manzo remains good law: leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death or serious bodily injury is a strict liability offense that does not require proof of any culpable mental state. The court also held that Colorado’s earlier habitual offender statute was not facially unconstitutional and, even if there was error in the judge making the habitual offender finding, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Brown v. People" on Justia Law

Angela Prichard endured months of harassment and stalking from her ex-husband, Christopher, including threats, vandalism, and surveillance. Despite multiple reports to police and both temporary and permanent restraining orders—each of which mandated Christopher’s arrest for violations—law enforcement officers did not take significant protective action. After a period away from her home, Angela returned despite warnings from the Chief of Police. A week later, Christopher fatally shot her. He was subsequently convicted of her murder. Angela’s family, including her sons, then sued the City of Bellevue and three police officers, alleging that the failure to protect Angela violated federal constitutional rights and Iowa law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed the complaint, determining that neither federal nor Iowa law created a duty for law enforcement to protect Angela from private violence under these circumstances. The court also denied the family’s post-judgment motion to amend their complaint, finding it was untimely and would have been futile because the proposed amendments did not present sufficient factual matter to plausibly state a claim.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Eighth Circuit held that substantive due process under the United States Constitution does not impose an affirmative duty on the government to protect individuals from private violence, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The court also concluded that Iowa’s no-contact order statute does not create a private right of action against law enforcement for failing to enforce such orders. The court further rejected the family’s other state law claims, including those brought under the Iowa Slayer Statute and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding the facts alleged did not support those causes of action. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. View "Close v. City of Bellevue Iowa" on Justia Law

Several individuals who were non-custodial parents and owed more than $2,500 in child support had their driver’s licenses suspended by the Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division (FSD), under a statutory scheme that, until 2023, did not require consideration of an individual’s ability to pay before suspending a license. The plaintiffs’ suspensions occurred in 2017 and 2018. Two plaintiffs’ suspensions were later stayed, and a third’s license was fully restored. They argued that the suspension policy violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the fundamental right to travel, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and reinstatement of their licenses.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri first denied a preliminary injunction as moot and then partially dismissed the complaint. It rejected dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Younger abstention, finding that plaintiffs’ claims were independent and no ongoing state proceeding existed. The court allowed only the procedural due process claim to proceed, dismissing other constitutional claims and claims against the governor. Later, the district court dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their suspensions were stayed or lifted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. It held that the plaintiffs lacked standing for declaratory relief because they did not allege ongoing or immediate injury, and their alleged harms were too speculative or unsupported. Any relief regarding Missouri’s prior statutory scheme was moot due to legislative amendments that now require consideration of ability to pay. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal regarding the preliminary injunction as moot. View "Bedford v. MO Dept of Social Services, Family Support Div." on Justia Law

During protests opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline in November 2016, Sophia Wilansky was severely injured when police fired an aerial warning munition that struck her arm. Earlier that night, officers had ordered Wilansky and another protester to disperse from a barricade on a closed bridge, warning that they would use less-lethal munitions if the order was ignored. When Wilansky and the other protester did not comply, officers fired various less-lethal munitions. After Wilansky began retreating, she was struck by the aerial munition, causing permanent injury to her left hand and forearm.Following the incident, Wilansky filed two lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. She alleged, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that county and state officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that Morton County maintained unconstitutional policies or customs. During the litigation, the district court struck certain new allegations and defendants from one complaint and ordered Wilansky to file an amended complaint. Wilansky then filed a second lawsuit with additional allegations against the stricken defendants. The district court ultimately dismissed both cases with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments. The court held that Wilansky did not sufficiently plead that the officers’ actions amounted to a clearly established Fourth Amendment seizure, nor did her allegations meet the “shocks the conscience” standard required for a Fourteenth Amendment claim. The court further held that she failed to establish a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by Morton County as of the date of her injury. Finally, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims with prejudice. View "Wilansky v. Morton County, North Dakota" on Justia Law

Police in Jersey City investigated a fatal shooting and, after receiving information from a confidential informant who identified two people by their nicknames and social media handles from surveillance footage, conducted a facial recognition technology (FRT) search using an Instagram profile photo. This search returned several possible matches, including the defendant. The police then interviewed several individuals, such as the defendant’s sister and ex-girlfriend, who identified the defendant from other surveillance images, but no witness identified him as the shooter or saw the shooting occur. Multiple men were present in the footage, and no video captured the shooting itself.After indictment for murder and weapons offenses, the defendant moved to compel discovery of various FRT-related materials, including proprietary information like the source code, relying on State v. Arteaga. The Superior Court, Law Division, granted the request for all thirteen items previously allowed in Arteaga. The State provided some limited FRT results but not all requested information, especially proprietary materials. The State then sought review from the Appellate Division, which denied leave to appeal, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s order and applying Arteaga.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that discovery obligations in cases involving FRT are not automatically governed by Arteaga’s checklist but must be tailored to the case’s facts. The Court affirmed that the State must produce non-proprietary discovery identifying the FRT tools and materials used, and information about how those tools were used in the investigation and prosecution. However, the Court reversed without prejudice the order to produce proprietary FRT information, such as source code, finding the record insufficiently developed to determine a particularized need. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Miles" on Justia Law

A group of registered voters in Massachusetts challenged the Attorney General’s certification of an initiative petition proposing to limit annual rent increases for residential properties. The petition would repeal the Statewide ban on rent control and instead institute a cap on rent increases, but it expressly exempted certain types of properties, including those in facilities operated solely for religious, educational, or nonprofit purposes. The Attorney General had certified that the petition did not contain excluded matters, issued the required summary, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth prepared the petition for circulation and potential inclusion on the November 2026 ballot after sufficient signatures.The plaintiffs filed a civil action in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, seeking a declaration that the petition was invalid under the Massachusetts Constitution, an order quashing the certification, and an injunction preventing the petition from appearing on the ballot. The parties agreed to reserve and report the case to the full Supreme Judicial Court. The central argument was that the petition impermissibly “relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions,” which is prohibited by Article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case de novo and concluded that, because the petition included an exemption for facilities operated solely for religious purposes, it “relates to religion” within the meaning of Article 48. The Court explained that the exemption makes religion a factor in the law’s application and would require governmental determinations about religious purpose, thereby conferring preferential treatment on religious institutions. The Court held that the petition is barred from the initiative process by Article 48 and directed that it may not be placed on the 2026 Statewide election ballot. The judgment was remanded for entry of a declaratory judgment and an injunction consistent with this holding. View "Cella v. Attorney General" on Justia Law