Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

A city-owned zoo in Alameda County is managed through a contract with a nonprofit corporation. In 2022, local voters approved an initiative, Measure Y, which imposed a parcel tax to fund zoo operations. The measure specified that tax revenue would be placed in a city fund and distributed to the “Zoo Operator” for certain uses. Measure Y identified the Conservation Society of California, the current nonprofit operator, by name and assigned it specific duties and powers related to the new tax revenue. The measure stated it would take effect if approved by a simple majority of voters and received 63.1% support.Following the election, the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association and an individual filed a reverse validation action in the Superior Court of Alameda County, seeking to invalidate Measure Y. They argued that the measure violated article II, section 12 of the California Constitution by naming a private corporation to perform functions or have duties, and that the measure required a two-thirds supermajority to pass. The trial court sustained demurrers to the supermajority claims, finding only a simple majority was needed, and granted judgment on the pleadings as to the constitutional claims. The court concluded that any reference to the Conservation Society was either not a violation or, if so, was severable, leaving the rest of the measure valid. Judgment was entered for the city and the Conservation Society.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found that Measure Y’s references to the Conservation Society as the “Zoo Operator” violated article II, section 12 because they assigned specific functions and duties to a named private corporation. However, the court held these references could be severed without affecting the remainder of the measure, which would remain valid. The court further held that only a simple majority vote was required for passage. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed as modified to reflect severance. View "Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

A university student faced disciplinary action after three fellow students reported separate incidents in which, while intoxicated, he allegedly engaged in nonconsensual and increasingly violent sexual conduct. Following these reports, the student was placed on interim suspension and criminally charged with multiple felonies. The criminal proceedings included a preliminary hearing where two complainants testified under oath and were rigorously cross-examined by the student’s attorney. The criminal case concluded with a plea agreement.While the criminal case was ongoing, the university initiated its own disciplinary process. This included a multi-stage investigation and hearing pursuant to university policy. At the fact-finding hearing, the complainants chose not to testify or participate. The hearing officer relied on the prior sworn testimony from the criminal proceeding and other evidence, ultimately finding the student responsible for violating university policies with respect to two complainants. The student was expelled, and his university appeal was denied.The student then sought review in Alameda County Superior Court, arguing that he was denied due process because he could not cross-examine the complainants at the university hearing and that the university’s delay prejudiced his defense. The superior court denied his petition, finding that due process was satisfied by the opportunity for cross-examination at the criminal proceeding and that the delay was justified and not prejudicial.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the superior court’s judgment. The court held that due process does not require live cross-examination of complainants at a university disciplinary hearing when such an opportunity was provided during prior criminal proceedings, and that any procedural delay was supported by good cause and did not result in prejudice to the student. The judgment for the university was affirmed. View "Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of California" on Justia Law

A former participant in a Zen Buddhist center’s residential training programs asserted wage-and-hour claims against the center and two of its leaders, arguing he was owed various wages and penalties for work performed during his time in the center’s programs. The center operates multiple facilities, offers residential programs, and generates income from guest activities and commercial events. The plaintiff undertook tasks such as guesthouse cleaning, kitchen work, gardening, and guest cooking, receiving modest stipends and room and board. After leaving the center, he filed his claims, alleging unpaid minimum and overtime wages and other statutory violations.The Labor Commissioner held in favor of the plaintiff and found the center, as well as the two individual leaders, liable for significant amounts. The center and the individuals appealed to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the individual appeals on the ground that only the center, not the individuals, was required to post an appeal bond. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the “ministerial exception” of the First Amendment barred the plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims due to the religious nature of the organization and the plaintiff’s role as a minister.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reversed the summary judgment. The court held that the ministerial exception does not categorically bar wage-and-hour claims by ministers against religious organizations in the absence of evidence that adjudicating the claims would require resolving ecclesiastical questions or interfere with religious autonomy. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the individual appeals, holding that only the employer (the center) was required to post the statutory undertaking, not the individual leaders. The judgment was thus reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Ehrenkranz v. S.F. Zen Center" on Justia Law