Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) introduced the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, a color-coded, risk-based framework for managing restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Blueprint included restrictions on business activities, including customer capacity limitations. Plaintiffs, Central California businesses and their owners, filed suit against the Governor and others responsible for creating and enforcing the Blueprint, alleging that its creation and enforcement were unlawful. They claimed that the Governor and CDPH lacked statutory authority to implement the Blueprint, and that broadly interpreting the Emergency Services Act (ESA) and Health and Safety Code section 120140 conferred unfettered discretion on defendants to impose restrictions on businesses, violating the California Constitution’s non-delegation doctrine.The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Blueprint. On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as moot because the Governor had rescinded the Blueprint. After this, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, holding that the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Newsom v. Superior Court (Gallagher) had rejected the same challenges to the Governor’s emergency powers that plaintiffs assert. The court entered judgment in defendants’ favor.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. The court followed Gallagher and concluded it governs the outcome of this appeal. The court held that the ESA permitted the Governor to amend or make new laws and did not violate the constitutional separation of powers by delegating quasi-legislative power to the Governor in an emergency. The court also found that the ESA contained several safeguards on the exercise of the power, including that the Governor must terminate the state of emergency as soon as possible and that the Legislature may terminate the emergency by passing a concurrent resolution. View "Ghost Golf, Inc. v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The case involves the City of San José and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA). The city had a significant unfunded liability in its pension plans for city employees. To address this shortfall, the city council adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of bonds, provided they result in savings for the city. The HJTA argued that this action violated the constitutional debt limitation, which prohibits cities from incurring any indebtedness or liability exceeding the income and revenue provided for a given year without the assent of two-thirds of the voters.The trial court upheld the city's actions, ruling that the bond issuance falls under the obligation imposed by law exception to the debt limitation. The HJTA appealed this decision, arguing that the city's actions violate the constitutional debt limitation and lack statutory authority.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, affirmed the judgment, but for different reasons than the trial court. The appellate court concluded that the city has not incurred any indebtedness or liability exceeding its annual income and revenue because the city's actions do not trigger the constitutional debt limitation. The court also found that the city has the authority under state law to issue the bonds. View "City of San Jose v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn." on Justia Law

The case involves Jameal M. Mosley, who was charged with unauthorized possession and transportation of a machine gun, being a felon in possession of a firearm for the benefit of a street gang, and being a felon in possession of ammunition. These charges stemmed from warrantless searches of Mosley's car and person, which yielded a loaded magazine and a Glock handgun with an automatic switch. Mosley filed a motion to suppress the magazine and handgun, arguing that the searches were unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion.The trial court held a suppression hearing. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department had received a call about a group of men creating a music video in a parking lot, with one of them holding a handgun. The officers arrived at the scene and detained all members of the group, including Mosley. They found a firearm on one of the men, D.M., and another firearm in D.M.'s car. Mosley was detained for approximately 41 minutes before his car was searched, revealing a loaded magazine. A subsequent search of Mosley's person revealed a Glock handgun with a switch. The trial court denied Mosley's motion to suppress, finding that the officers had probable cause to search Mosley's car and that the detention was not prolonged.Mosley filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District. The appellate court agreed with Mosley's argument that the trial court erred in finding the warrantless searches were supported by probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the officers lacked probable cause to search Mosley's car and that the detention was unlawfully prolonged. The court granted Mosley's petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying Mosley's motion to suppress and enter a new order granting the motion. View "Mosley v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves Clifford Alan Dilbert, who filed petitions for clemency and/or commutation of his prison sentence with the Governor's office in 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Dilbert claimed that he had not received any communication from the Governor's office regarding the processing of his clemency petition. He sought a writ of mandate to compel Governor Gavin Newsom to process his applications and reapplications for clemency/commutation, render a decision on those applications, and notify him of the decision in a timely manner.The Superior Court of Sacramento County sustained the Governor’s demurrer to the petition without leave to amend. The court concluded that Dilbert does not have a due process right to have his applications processed within a particular time frame and the law imposes no duty to process clemency applications within a particular time frame. Dilbert appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court found that neither the California Constitution nor any provision of Penal Code sections 4800 to 4813 contains an express requirement that the Governor process clemency applications within a specified time frame. The court also rejected Dilbert's argument that the application instructions created an obligation for the Governor to grant discretionary clemency within a certain amount of time. The court concluded that Dilbert does not have a due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution to have his application processed within a certain time frame. View "Dilbert v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The case involves Eric Bean Knudsen, who had his driver's license suspended following an administrative per se (APS) hearing. The hearing officer from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) concluded that Knudsen had driven his car with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or greater. Knudsen challenged this decision through a writ of mandate in the Kern County Superior Court, which was denied, and the suspension was upheld.Knudsen appealed the decision, arguing that his state and federal due process rights were violated because the hearing officer who conducted the APS hearing was not constitutionally impartial. He cited a previous case, California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. DMV, which held that a public hearing officer who acts as both an advocate and adjudicator violates a driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District reviewed the case. The court agreed with Knudsen, concluding that the public hearing officer acted as both an adjudicator and an advocate, which violated Knudsen's due process right to an impartial adjudicator. As a result, the court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for a new APS hearing. View "Knudsen v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

In California, a lawsuit was brought against the state by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the City of Redondo Beach. The plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 10, which allowed local governments to bypass housing density restrictions, violated the initiative power of the California Constitution. The trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, leading them to appeal.Senate Bill 10 was enacted to address the severe shortage of housing in California. It provided local legislative bodies the authority to supersede local housing density caps, including those enacted by voter initiatives, in order to allow for more housing units per parcel of land. This power was not absolute; it could only be exercised in certain areas and required a supermajority vote to supersede caps adopted by local voter initiatives.The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that Senate Bill 10 did not violate the initiative power of the California Constitution. The appellate court reasoned that the housing shortage was a matter of statewide concern and that the bill conflicted with, and hence preempted, local initiatives that mandated housing density caps. Furthermore, the court determined that the bill's mechanism of granting local legislative bodies the discretion to supersede such caps was not constitutionally problematic.The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that existing voter initiatives constituted a preemptive exercise of the local legislative body’s discretion under Senate Bill 10, such that the body lacked the power to supersede such initiatives. The court found no textual support for this argument in the bill and concluded that such an interpretation would frustrate the purpose of Senate Bill 10. View "AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta" on Justia Law

In this case, Albert Jackson was alone in a parked car when two officers approached him. The officers boxed him in, shined flashlights on him, and questioned him, while observing that he was wearing a bulky jacket on a hot night and seemed nervous. The officers did not have any reason to suspect criminal activity, but they stopped and detained Jackson due to his behavior. The officers found a gun in Jackson's possession, leading to his arrest. Jackson challenged his arrest, arguing that his detention violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court disagreed and denied his motion to suppress the evidence.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight held that the officers' actions amounted to an unjustified detention. The court found that a reasonable person in Jackson's position would not feel free to leave due to the officers' display of authority. The court noted that the officers did not have any specific and articulable facts suggesting that criminal activity was afoot. Wearing a bulky jacket on a hot night, appearing surprised and nervous, and sitting awkwardly in a car do not amount to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court also rejected the prosecution's argument that the area was a high-crime area, stating that the officer's words did not suggest this.The court reversed the judgment, vacated the conviction, and remanded the matter for the trial court to vacate its order denying Jackson’s motion to suppress the evidence and to enter a new order granting that motion. The court concluded that Jackson's detention was invalid and violated the Fourth Amendment. View "People v. Jackson" on Justia Law

This case revolves around the appeal of Timothy Marvin Santos, who was originally sentenced in 2007 under California's Three Strikes law and other enhancement provisions. The appeal concerns a resentencing order issued in 2022, where the trial court struck Santos' prior prison term and drug conviction enhancements but maintained his sentence of 25 years to life under the original Three Strikes law.Santos argued that the court did not apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 to reduce his sentence and that the resentencing was held without his presence, violating his federal and state constitutional rights. The People initially supported the trial court's decision but later changed their stance, suggesting that the court should have resentenced Santos under the current penalty provisions specified by the Reform Act.However, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, disagreed with this assertion. The court held that the Reform Act's revised penalty provisions could not be retroactively applied to Santos' sentence outside of the specific mechanism provided for in the Act itself. The court further concluded that if the resentencing statute was interpreted to authorize retroactive application of the revised penalty provisions without adhering to the criteria in the Reform Act, it would unconstitutionally amend the initiative statute.Concerning Santos' absence during resentencing, the court concluded that any error in accepting his counsel's waiver of his presence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Santos could not have offered any help since he was not eligible for a reduction of his term under the Three Strikes law based on the resentencing statute. Consequently, his absence could not have influenced the proceeding's outcome. The court affirmed the judgment. View "P. v. Santos" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, considered a habeas corpus request by Ropati Afatia Seumanu, a capital case convict. Seumanu sought a certificate of appealability (COA) after his habeas corpus petition was dismissed, as he sought to challenge the superior court's decision on nine points. The court agreed to issue a COA on one claim but declined to do so for the remaining claims. The court also addressed three unprecedented issues: whether the 10-day time limit for granting or denying COA requests was mandatory or directory; how strong a showing a COA applicant must make to meet the “substantial claim for relief” test; and whether an as-applied attack on the constitutionality of section 1509, subdivision (d) was appealable under section 1509.1(c). The court found that the 10-day time limit was not mandatory, a “substantial claim to relief” required a strong enough showing for reasonable jurists to debate whether the trial court erred, and as-applied attacks on the constitutionality of section 1509(d) were appealable under section 1509.1(c). The court also discussed the need for a COA applicant to provide an adequate record for review. View "In re Seumanu" on Justia Law

This case involved Jason Felix, who was arrested for a traffic violation in Utah where a consensual search of his car led to the discovery of a handgun, ammunition, and over five kilograms of methamphetamine. Felix became a suspect in two murders in Southern California while in custody in Utah on drug charges. Upon his return to California, Felix invoked his right to counsel during an interview about one of the murders. He was then placed in a cell with an undercover detective, to whom he made incriminating statements about both murders. The trial court denied Felix's motion to suppress the evidence from the Utah traffic stop and admitted his incriminating statements made to the undercover agent. He was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder.On appeal, Felix contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence from the warrantless search of his car and in admitting his statements to the undercover agent as he had previously invoked his right to counsel. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District disagreed and affirmed the judgment of conviction in its entirety. The court held that the traffic stop was lawful and not unduly prolonged, and Felix's consent to the car search was voluntary and free from coercion. It also held that Felix's incriminating statements to the undercover detective were properly admitted, as they were made freely to someone he believed to be a fellow inmate. However, the court agreed that Felix should be awarded an additional day of presentence custody credits and remanded the case to the superior court for correction. View "People v. Felix" on Justia Law