Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Police officers responded to a report that a man in a yellow and black coat was pointing a handgun at people at a Minneapolis light rail station. They found the suspect inside a nearby pizza restaurant, where several other people, including 16-year-old C.T.B., were standing nearby. An officer, based on his experience that weapons can be passed among individuals in a group, conducted a pat-frisk of C.T.B. and found a handgun in his possession. C.T.B. was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor and moved to suppress the handgun, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to frisk him.The Hennepin County District Court denied the motion to suppress, finding that C.T.B.’s proximity to the original suspect and the officer’s experience justified the frisk. After a stipulated facts trial, the court found C.T.B. guilty and stayed adjudication. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the totality of the circumstances—including the possibility that the original suspect had handed off the firearm—made the frisk of C.T.B. objectively reasonable.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the officers did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion that C.T.B. was armed and dangerous when they conducted the pat-frisk. The court clarified that mere proximity to a suspect in an alleged crime, even when combined with general knowledge that weapons can be passed among group members, is not sufficient to justify a warrantless pat-frisk under Terry v. Ohio. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.T.B" on Justia Law

Fletcher Properties, Inc. and other appellants own multi-tenant residential properties in Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis enacted an ordinance prohibiting property owners from refusing to rent to individuals based on requirements of public assistance programs, including Section 8 housing vouchers. Fletcher challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated the Minnesota Constitution’s Takings Clause and was preempted by the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).The district court initially ruled in favor of Fletcher, finding the ordinance violated due process and equal protection clauses. The court of appeals reversed this decision, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, remanding the case to address the remaining claims. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the City, rejecting Fletcher’s takings and preemption claims. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, leading to the current appeal.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the ordinance does not constitute a physical or regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution. The court applied the Penn Central factors, concluding that the economic impact of the ordinance, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action did not support a finding of a regulatory taking. The court also determined that the ordinance does not effect a physical taking as landlords voluntarily rent their properties and are not compelled to continue doing so.Additionally, the court held that the ordinance is not preempted by the MHRA. The court found no conflict between the ordinance and the MHRA, as the MHRA does not grant landlords an affirmative right to reject voucher holders. The court also concluded that the MHRA does not occupy the field of housing discrimination based on public assistance, allowing for local regulation.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, upholding the ordinance. View "Fletcher Properties, Inc. vs. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Samuel Alejondro Torrez was arrested for driving while impaired and driving after license cancellation. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant to test Torrez’s blood or urine, which he refused. Torrez was charged with first-degree test refusal and driving after license cancellation. Before trial, Torrez requested the district court to instruct the jury that the State must prove the arresting officer had probable cause to believe he was driving while impaired. The district court denied this request, and the jury found Torrez guilty on both counts.The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Torrez’s conviction, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not including a probable cause element in the jury instructions. The court reasoned that the issuance of the search warrant already established probable cause.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 2(2), requires the State to prove that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the defendant was driving while impaired. The court held that the plain language of the statute does not require the State to prove probable cause for the refusal of a blood or urine test when a search warrant is involved. The court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, concluding that the district court did not err in its jury instructions. View "State v. Torrez" on Justia Law

Eloisa Rubi Plancarte was convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure under Minnesota Statutes section 617.23, subdivision 1(1) for exposing her breasts in a gas station parking lot. Plancarte argued that her breasts are not "private parts" under the statute and that her exposure was not "lewd." She also claimed that prosecuting her for conduct that men are allowed to engage in violated her constitutional right to equal protection. The district court denied her motion to dismiss, and she was found guilty in a stipulated-evidence trial.Plancarte appealed her conviction, but the court of appeals affirmed it in a divided opinion. The majority concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, while the dissent argued that the statute requires lewd conduct in addition to exposure, which was not proven in this case.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the term "lewdly" in the statute refers to conduct of a sexual nature. The court found that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that Plancarte's exposure was lewd, as there was no indication that her conduct was of a sexual nature. Consequently, the court reversed Plancarte's conviction. The court did not address whether female breasts are "private parts" under the statute or the equal protection claim, as the decision on the lewdness element resolved the case. View "State v. Plancarte" on Justia Law

The case involves two petitions for a writ of quo warranto filed against certain members of the Minnesota House of Representatives. The petitions claim that at the start of the legislative session on January 14, 2025, the House did not have a quorum to transact business. Secretary of State Steve Simon, who has statutory responsibilities in the House at the start of the legislative session, brought one petition. Representatives Melissa Hortman, Jamie Long, and Athena Hollins brought the other petition. The issue arose because, following a district court ruling that a DFL member did not meet the residency requirement, the House had 67 members from each of the two major political parties, and only the Republican members were present.The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the cases and determined that Secretary of State Simon's petition was justiciable, thus not needing to address the justiciability of the other petition. The court held that the quorum clause in Article IV, Section 13, of the Minnesota Constitution requires a majority of the total number of seats of which each house may consist to constitute a quorum. Under current statute, the total number of seats in the Minnesota House of Representatives is 134, so a quorum is 68 members.The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the quorum clause's requirement of a majority of each house refers to the total number of seats prescribed by law, which is currently 134 for the House of Representatives. Therefore, a quorum requires 68 members. The court assumed that the parties would conform to this opinion without the necessity of issuing a formal writ. View "Simon v. Demuth" on Justia Law

Deborah Jane Clapp, a Minneapolis homeowner and taxpayer, filed a declaratory judgment action against the Minneapolis Public Schools and its officials. Clapp challenged the constitutionality of racial and ethnic preference provisions in a collective bargaining agreement between the school district and its teachers' union. She sought to stop the school district from implementing and spending public money on these provisions, alleging they violated the Minnesota Constitution's Equal Protection Guarantee.The district court dismissed Clapp's complaint, ruling that she lacked standing and that her claims were not ripe. Clapp appealed, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, concluding that Clapp had taxpayer standing and that her claims were ripe for judicial review. The school district then petitioned for review by the Minnesota Supreme Court.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the issue of taxpayer standing. The court held that taxpayer standing exists only when the central dispute involves alleged unlawful disbursements of public funds. In this case, the court found that the alleged unlawful disbursements were merely incidental to the central dispute, which was the constitutionality of the racial and ethnic preference provisions in the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, Clapp lacked taxpayer standing to bring her claims. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, upholding the district court's dismissal of Clapp's complaint. View "Clapp vs. Sayles-Adams" on Justia Law

Berry Alexander Davis was involved in the kidnapping and murder of Monique Baugh and the attempted murder of her boyfriend, Jon, on New Year’s Eve in 2019. Baugh was abducted, placed in a U-Haul truck, and fatally shot. Davis and a co-defendant, Cedric Lamont Berry, were charged with first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and kidnapping. The State's theory was that Davis and Berry attacked Jon on behalf of Lyndon Wiggins, who had a falling out with Jon. Detective Briana Johnson testified about the relationship between Davis, Berry, and Wiggins, indicating they were involved in drug dealing together. Davis waived his right to testify, and the jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release.On direct appeal, Davis argued that the district court erred in joining his trial with Berry’s and that Detective Johnson’s testimony was inadmissible and prejudicial. The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed his conviction and sentence. Davis also filed a pro se supplemental brief raising several claims, including that his sentence violated his constitutional right to a sentencing jury under Blakely v. Washington. The court found these claims lacked merit.Davis subsequently filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and constitutional violations in his sentencing. The district court summarily denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that even if Davis proved the facts alleged, he would not be entitled to relief as a matter of law.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing, as his claims failed on their merits as a matter of law. View "Davis vs. State" on Justia Law

Michael Benson was civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in 1993. In 2020, he petitioned for a reduction in custody, which the Special Review Board recommended denying. Benson then sought a rehearing and reconsideration from the Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP). He filed a motion to cross-examine witnesses and participate in his defense, expressing a preference to proceed pro se. The CAP allowed limited cross-examination by Benson but required his appointed counsel to be present and conduct initial questioning. Benson refused to participate under these conditions, leading the CAP to dismiss his petition.Benson appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the right to counsel under Minnesota Statutes section 253D.20 is waivable. The court of appeals affirmed the CAP's decision, holding that the right to counsel in section 253D.20 is not waivable, based on its precedent. The court also noted that Benson forfeited his constitutional arguments by not raising them at the CAP hearing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a civilly committed person can waive the right to counsel under section 253D.20. The court concluded that the right to counsel is waivable, provided the waiver is knowing and intelligent. The court found the statutory language ambiguous but interpreted it in light of legislative intent, common law, and constitutional considerations. The court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case to the CAP to determine if Benson's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. If so, the CAP must allow him to represent himself. View "In re Matter of the Civil Commitment of Benson" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Re-Enfranchisement Act, which allows individuals convicted of felony-level offenses to vote once they are no longer incarcerated. The plaintiffs, individual taxpayers and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, argued that the Act violates the Minnesota Constitution by restoring only the right to vote rather than all civil rights. They also claimed that using public funds to educate and notify people about the new voting provision is unlawful if the Act itself is unconstitutional.The district court denied the petition, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court determined that taxpayer standing requires a challenge to an illegal expenditure or waste of tax money, which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate. The court also found that the Minnesota Voters Alliance lacked associational standing because its members did not have standing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court clarified that taxpayer standing exists only when the central dispute involves alleged unlawful disbursements of public funds. The court held that the plaintiffs could not manufacture standing by pointing to incidental expenditures related to implementing the law. Since the plaintiffs' challenge was primarily against the substantive law itself and not the expenditures, they lacked the necessary standing. Consequently, the Minnesota Voters Alliance also lacked associational standing. The court did not address the merits of the case due to the lack of standing. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Hunt" on Justia Law

Melissa Zielinski was convicted of first-degree intentional murder and second-degree intentional murder under aiding-and-abetting theories. The case arose from the robbery and fatal shooting of Karl Henderson. Zielinski and her brother, Nicholas, planned to rob Henderson, who was known to keep large sums of money in a safe. During the robbery, Nicholas shot Henderson. Evidence included DNA on the stolen safe, phone location data, and witness testimony.The district court denied Zielinski’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone and her statements to police, finding the search warrants valid and the police questioning lawful. Zielinski was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder. Her postconviction petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the search warrants on particularity grounds, was summarily denied.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that any potential Fourth Amendment violation from police questioning was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Similarly, any Sixth Amendment violation from limiting cross-examination of Nicholas was also deemed harmless. The court agreed that the district court erred in entering convictions for both first-degree and second-degree murder, as the latter is a lesser-included offense of the former. The court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction, reversed the second-degree murder conviction, and remanded to vacate the latter. The court also upheld the denial of Zielinski’s postconviction relief petition, finding no reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different even if the challenged evidence had been excluded. View "State of Minnesota vs. Zielinski" on Justia Law