Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A public hospital district in California established and recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in 1991 for a common interest development known as the Tulare Medical Center. These CC&Rs included a prohibition on abortion clinics within the development. In 2001, certain property subject to these CC&Rs was transferred to individual owners, who later sought to lease it to a family planning organization that provides a range of services, including abortion. The property owners association, comprised of all parcel owners and authorized to enforce the CC&Rs, objected to the lease and sought to enjoin the operation of the clinic, arguing that any abortion services would violate the CC&Rs.The Superior Court of Tulare County reviewed the association’s request for a preliminary injunction. After considering the parties’ submissions and arguments, the court denied the injunction. The court found there was a credible threat that abortion services would be provided but concluded the association had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Specifically, the trial court noted unresolved legal questions regarding whether restrictions on abortion clinics in CC&Rs violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California constitutional protections, and found the association failed to demonstrate that the balance of harms favored an injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the prohibition on abortion clinics, adopted by a public entity, constituted government action that interfered with the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive choice under the California Constitution. The court applied the compelling interest test, found no compelling interest justifying the restriction, and concluded the prohibition violated fundamental public policy. Additionally, the court held that the prohibition was void under Civil Code section 53 because it indirectly limited property use based on a characteristic protected by the Unruh Act. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Tulare Medical Center Property v. Valdivia" on Justia Law

The defendant was found driving a car in which police discovered an assault rifle with a large-capacity magazine on the front seat. He attempted to evade a traffic stop and subsequently fled the vehicle. The prosecution charged him with felony “receiving” a large-capacity magazine under California Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (a). The only evidence presented was that the defendant possessed the magazine, with no additional evidence about how or when he acquired it.The Contra Costa County Superior Court convicted the defendant of felony receiving a large-capacity magazine. The defendant appealed, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for receiving, as opposed to mere possession, and that the jury was incorrectly instructed on the distinction between the two offenses. He also argued the statute was unconstitutional. The prosecution argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the felony conviction and that the defendant’s actions supported a finding of receiving rather than just possessing.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Penal Code section 32310 distinguishes between “receiving” and “possessing” a large-capacity magazine, with “receiving” punishable as a felony or misdemeanor and “possessing” punishable as a misdemeanor or infraction. The appellate court found that mere possession is insufficient to support a conviction for receiving; additional evidence is required to show how or when the defendant acquired the magazine. Because the record contained no such evidence, the court reversed the defendant’s felony conviction for receiving a large-capacity magazine. The rest of the judgment was affirmed. The appellate court did not reach the issues of instructional error or the statute’s constitutionality. View "P. v. Newt" on Justia Law

A young adult defendant was charged with vandalism and vehicle theft in Santa Clara County. After the prosecution indicated the defendant met initial eligibility requirements for a young adult deferred entry of judgment program under Penal Code section 1000.7, the trial court referred the defendant to the county probation department for further assessment. The probation department determined the defendant was unsuitable for the program because he resided in Alameda County, which did not operate a corresponding program, and concluded that he could not benefit from Santa Clara County’s services due to his residency.The Superior Court of Santa Clara County accepted the probation department’s determination and continued the criminal cases, effectively denying deferred entry of judgment. The defense argued that section 1000.7 did not prohibit out-of-county residents from participating, that the trial court should have authority to make the final eligibility determination, and that if the statute granted exclusive authority to probation, it would violate the constitutional separation of powers. The trial court found the statute unambiguously vested eligibility determinations with the probation department.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case on a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or alternative relief. The court held that section 1000.7 gives the probation department—not the trial court—the authority to decide whether a defendant meets the statutory criteria for participation in the deferred entry of judgment program. The court also held that assigning this responsibility to the probation department does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Finally, the court determined that the probation department did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant entry into the program based on his out-of-county residence. The petition was denied. View "Armstrong v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

In 2018, a juvenile wardship petition alleged that E.J. committed several offenses, including assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm. E.J. admitted to that charge as part of a negotiated disposition, and the juvenile court found the allegations true, dismissed the remaining counts, declared E.J. a ward of the court, and placed him on probation. In 2019, the court reduced the offense to a misdemeanor, terminated probation, discharged E.J. as a ward, and sealed the record. Despite these actions, E.J. remained subject to a statutory firearm prohibition until age 30 under Penal Code section 29820.In 2025, E.J. filed a motion in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to terminate the firearm prohibition. The juvenile court denied the motion. E.J. appealed, arguing that Penal Code section 29820 was facially unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming it failed to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, improperly used age as a proxy for dangerousness, and did not provide a mechanism for individualized assessment regarding dangerousness.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that section 29820 is not facially unconstitutional. It found that firearm prohibitions based on juvenile adjudications for certain offenses are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation and that the statute’s application based on prior adjudication—not age alone—does not offend the Second Amendment. The court also held that due process does not require an individualized assessment of dangerousness when the statute’s application is triggered solely by a prior adjudication. The court further found that any as-applied challenge was forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court or in E.J.’s opening brief. The order was affirmed. View "In re E.J." on Justia Law

A criminal complaint was filed against an individual in July 2024, alleging multiple counts of lewd acts, forcible lewd acts, and continuous sexual abuse of four minors, all of whom are his grandchildren. The prosecution also alleged a multiple victim enhancement. At an initial arraignment, the magistrate court set bail and imposed protective orders. Later, the prosecution moved to have the defendant held without bail, citing the danger he posed to the community. At a Humphrey hearing, the prosecution presented testimony and evidence suggesting repeated sexual abuse over many years, including admissions by the defendant. The magistrate court found this evidence reliable and determined that nonfinancial conditions of release would not protect the public or victims, ordering the defendant held without bail.The defendant challenged the no-bail order in the Superior Court of Fresno County through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argued the magistrate court abused its discretion, particularly in considering the prosecution’s request for remand without bail absent a change in circumstances, and asserted there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of substantial likelihood of great bodily harm. The superior court issued an order to show cause on these specific issues but ultimately denied the petition after considering the parties’ responses.Upon further review, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was directed by the California Supreme Court to address whether Penal Code section 292 constitutes an impermissible legislative extension of the constitutional terms “acts of violence” and “great bodily harm,” and whether, absent section 292, clear and convincing evidence supported denial of bail. The appellate court held that section 292 is a valid legislative implementation, not an invalid extension, of the bail exception in article I, section 12 of the California Constitution. The court further found that substantial evidence supported the finding that the defendant’s release would pose a substantial likelihood of great bodily harm, and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "In re Bergstrom" on Justia Law

A man on probation was investigated for allegedly diverting customer payments from his employer to himself. Law enforcement learned that, as a condition of his probation, he had agreed to allow searches of his person, residence, and electronic devices, but his probation terms specifically excluded “financial accounts or transactions” from warrantless searches. During the investigation, officers arrested him, seized his phone, and searched several banking applications, including Apple Pay. Information from Apple Pay revealed the existence of certain bank accounts, which led officers to obtain a warrant to search those accounts and gather further evidence.In the Superior Court of Orange County, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the bank accounts and to quash the warrant, arguing that the Apple Pay search exceeded the scope of his probation terms and that the subsequent warrant was based on unlawfully obtained information. The prosecution argued the motion was more properly a motion to traverse the warrant, contending that Apple Pay was not a “financial account” and that the warrant was supported by probable cause. The trial court denied the suppression and quash motions.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the defendant’s motion should be treated as a motion to traverse the warrant, as the warrant affidavit omitted material information about the probation search limitations. The court found that Apple Pay is a “financial account” under the plain meaning of the probation terms. Because the information about the bank accounts was obtained through an unlawful search of a financial account, it was improperly included in the warrant application. The appellate court ordered the trial court to vacate its earlier order and grant the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the bank accounts. View "Meiner v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case concerns the suspension of a driver’s license by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) after the driver, stopped for erratic driving and suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, refused a chemical test when properly advised of the consequences. At the administrative hearing regarding his suspension, the DMV’s hearing officer introduced evidence, asked clarifying questions, and ruled on objections, all while stating she was acting as a neutral factfinder rather than as an advocate for the DMV. The driver argued that the hearing officer’s dual roles violated his due process rights by making her both a prosecutor and adjudicator.After the DMV sustained the license suspension, the driver petitioned the Superior Court of Alameda County for a writ of mandate, claiming that the hearing officer functioned as both advocate and judge, creating an unconstitutional risk of bias. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the DMV’s current policy required hearing officers to act only as neutral decisionmakers and that no due process violation occurred.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the denial. The court clarified that due process requires an impartial adjudicator but does not prohibit the same person from developing the evidence and making a decision in an administrative setting, so long as there is no disqualifying interest or extraordinary evidence of bias. The court held that the DMV’s current structure does not violate due process, as hearing officers are presumed impartial and their actions in presenting evidence do not turn them into advocates. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. The court expressly declined to follow recent decisions adopting an “appearance of bias” standard and reinforced that only an actual, constitutionally intolerable risk of bias triggers a due process violation. View "Chi v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

Late at night, police officers responded to a 911 call reporting a man with a gun in an area known for gang activity. The caller provided a description and stated that the man put a gun in a white Kia parked nearby. An officer recognized someone matching the description—later identified as Perez—who entered a nearby apartment. Officers, without a warrant or exigent circumstances, approached the residence, saw Perez inside through the screen door, and ordered him to come out at gunpoint. Perez initially did not comply but eventually exited and was detained outside. A witness identified Perez as the suspect, and a subsequent search of the Kia and Perez’s person uncovered a firearm, drugs, and related evidence.Perez moved to suppress the evidence in the Superior Court of Orange County, arguing that his seizure inside the apartment violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked probable cause and a warrant. The prosecution argued that the initial detention was justified by reasonable suspicion and that no warrant was necessary since officers did not physically enter the residence. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the detention was proper, and Perez ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that Perez was seized while still inside the residence and that, under the Fourth Amendment, such a seizure requires both probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances. The court rejected the prosecution’s arguments that the officers’ conduct was permissible as a mere detention or as a warrantless arrest effected from outside the home. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to allow Perez to withdraw his plea and to grant suppression of the evidence and identification derived from the unlawful seizure. View "People v. Perez" on Justia Law

A group of men, including the defendants, robbed a man named Cabral at gunpoint in his garage. During the incident, one of the participants, Tyrone Lampley, was found dead near the scene. Police recovered Lampley’s cell phone from his body, and after informing Lampley’s mother of his death, obtained her consent to search the phone. The search revealed text messages implicating one defendant, which led to further evidence connecting both defendants to the crime.The prosecution charged Milo William Anderson and Edward Lee Allen, Jr. in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Prior to trial, the defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained from Lampley’s phone, arguing that the search violated the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) because law enforcement did not obtain a warrant and Lampley’s mother was not an “authorized possessor” of the phone under the statute. The magistrate denied the suppression motion, and the trial court upheld that ruling, finding that Lampley’s mother was reasonably believed by police to be the authorized possessor. Both defendants then pleaded no contest to their respective charges and were sentenced to prison.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the denial of the suppression motion. The court held that even if law enforcement violated CalECPA by searching the phone without a warrant, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The court reasoned that officers reasonably believed Lampley’s mother, as next of kin, could consent to the search, and there was no case law at the time clarifying who was an “authorized possessor” after a device owner’s death. The court affirmed the judgments, concluding that suppression of the evidence was not required. View "People v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The case centers on events that unfolded after Isaias Valencia, under the influence of methamphetamine and cocaine, fled police attempting to stop him for suspected drunk driving in Pomona, California. After leading officers on a reckless high-speed chase that ended in a crash, Valencia ran to his apartment, barricaded himself in a bedroom, and refused to surrender. An overnight standoff ensued, during which Valencia fatally shot one officer and seriously wounded another. The police, including a SWAT team, eventually forced entry and apprehended him. Laboratory tests later confirmed the presence of drugs in his system.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County tried and convicted Valencia of multiple felonies, including murder, four counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault with a firearm, felon in possession of a gun, and felony evasion. The jury found that the officers were lawfully performing their duties and that the murder was committed to prevent a lawful arrest. The trial court sentenced Valencia to life without parole plus additional years. Valencia appealed, challenging the warrantless entry into his apartment, the number of convictions based on the number of bullets fired, and aspects of his sentence.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It held that exigent circumstances—including hot pursuit of a fleeing felon and the need to preserve dissipating evidence—justified the initial warrantless entry, and police were not required to obtain a warrant during the standoff. The court also rejected the argument that the number of shooting convictions must match the number of shots fired, finding that assault with a firearm does not require a shot to be fired. However, the court agreed that sentencing errors occurred and remanded for correction, affirming the judgment in all other respects. View "People v. Valencia" on Justia Law