Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Without permission and in violation of school policy, a high school student retrieved a wallet and sweatshirt from his pickup truck, which was parked on a public street across from the school. When the student returned to school grounds, the assistant principal searched the student's person, backpack, and wallet, only to discover a cellular telephone and a set of keys. Without the student's consent, the assistant principal then searched the student's truck and found drug paraphernalia. The student was suspended for nineteen days. The school board upheld the suspension. The district court reversed the decision of the board and ordered the suspension and offenses expunged from the student's school record, holding that the search of the truck violated the Fourth Amendment, as the assistant principal lacked probable cause to expand the search to the truck. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search of the student's truck violated the student's right to be free from unreasonable searches. View "J.P. v. Millard Pub. Schs." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to distribute. The jury found the quantity of the mixture containing cocaine was 10.25 grams. Defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient foundation regarding the accuracy of a scale used to weigh the cocaine in order to admit evidence of the weight. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it admitted testimony regarding the weight of the cocaine without sufficient foundation regarding the accuracy of the scale, and the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer pulled over Defendant's vehicle because it momentarily crossed over the divider line between two eastbound lines on an interstate. Because of suspicions he developed while issuing a warning ticket for the alleged traffic violation, the officer searched the vehicle and discovered cocaine in the trunk. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the district court overruled. The court subsequently convicted Defendant as charged. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) evidence that Defendant's vehicle momentarily crossed a lane divider line, without more, did not establish a statutory violation and thereby provide probable cause for a traffic stop; and (2) because the officer admitted that this "happens all the time" and failed to distinguish how this case differed from normal behavior, there was not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to support an investigatory stop. Remanded. View "State v. Au" on Justia Law

Appellant sued Doctor for medical malpractice. After a jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of Doctor. During trial, the court permitted Doctor to question one of Appellant's treating physicians about his opinion of Doctor's performance in treating Appellant for hip pain even though neither party had designated the treating physician as an expert. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court erroneously admitted the disputed testimony about the standard of care but that the error was harmless because the parties' designated experts provided similar evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's ruling denied Appellant any opportunity to challenge the presumptive validity and weight that a jury would have given to Appellant's own treating physician testifying as an expert against him; and (2) therefore, the error was prejudicial. Remanded for a new trial. View "Simon v. Drake" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a resident of Nebraska. In 1963, Plaintiff received a copy of the book "Revolutionary Road," which was inscribed to her by the late author Richard Yates. Plaintiff's inscribed copy of the book was later stolen. Ken Lopez and his company, Ken Lopez Bookseller (KLB), bought the book in 2009 from a seller in Georgia and sold it to a customer not in Nebraska. Plaintiff later learned that Lopez had used the inscription in the book for advertising purposes on his website. Plaintiff brought suit against Lopez and KLB for violating her right to privacy. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's complaint failed to plead facts to demonstrate that Lopez and KLB had sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Nebraska, as (1) the contacts created by the website were unrelated to Plaintiff's cause of action, and (2) under the Calder v. Jones foreseeable effects test, the pleadings failed to establish that Lopez and KLB expressly aimed their tortious conduct at the state of Nebraska. View "Abdouch v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, first degree assault, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the first degree murder conviction and the conviction on the charge of being a felon in possession of a deadly weapon; (2) any error with respect to the jury instructions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct; (4) Defendant received effective assistance of counsel at trial; (5) the district court did not err in finding that one of the exhibits used at trial was sufficient to establish a prior felony conviction; and (6) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant, but the court plainly erred in the allocation of credit for time served, and therefore, Defendant's sentences were modified by ordering that the credit for time served be applied against the sentence for first degree assault. View "State v. Watt" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case were rental property owners in the City of La Vista. Appellant sought a declaration that the City's ordinance establishing a rental housing licensing and inspection program was unconstitutional. Appellants claimed that the ordinance's application to rental property residences only, and not to owner-occupied residences, was an arbitrary and unreasonable classification that violated Nebraska's constitutional prohibition against special legislation. The district court entered summary judgment for the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City's ordinance did not violate the prohibition against special legislation, as (1) the distinction between rental property residences and owner-occupied residences presented a real difference in circumstances; and (2) the City's regulation of rental properties was reasonably related to its legitimate goal of maintaining safe rental housing and livable neighborhoods. View "D-CO, Inc. v. City of La Vista" on Justia Law

In 2002, the Legislature enacted a statute requiring judges, prior to accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to administer a specific advisement regarding possible consequences of the conviction for persons who are not citizens of the United States. At issue in this appeal was whether the court may deny a motion to set aside a plea under this statute upon proof that a defendant who was not given the required advisement was nevertheless aware of the immigration consequences of the plea and resulting conviction. Here Defendant pled no contest to attempted sexual assault and kidnapping and later filed a motion to withdraw his pleas for the district court's failure to give him the required advisement. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the statute on its face requires that all noncitizens accused of a crime must be given the advisement; (2) Defendant established he was not given the required statutory advisement regarding immigration consequences of conviction and actually faced a consequence as a result of his convictions; and (3) Defendant was entitled to have his judgments of conviction vacated and to withdraw his pleas and enter pleas of not guilty. Remanded. View "State v. Medina-Liborio" on Justia Law

In October 2011, Defendant was charged with, inter alia, first degree murder and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The cases were not consolidated but both cases were set for trial in March 2012. Defendant's counsel requested a continuance in the murder case. The district court continued trial in both cases to July 2012. In June 2012, Defendant moved for discharge in the murder case, alleging that his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial had been violated. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion for discharge based upon a violation of Defendant's statutory or constitutional rights to a speedy trial, as all delays in the trial were the result of Defendants' motion for continuance and motion for discharge. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

After an investigation by the Omaha Police Department's "cold case" homicide unit, Defendant was charged in 2010 with the 1978 murder of Carroll Bonnet. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) because approximately thirty-three years had passed since the murder, he was denied his right to confront witnesses and present a complete defense, as many of the alleged original witnesses were dead or unavailable; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the questioning of a witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant's motion to dismiss where the charges were brought thirty-three years after the commission of the crimes, as Defendant could not show the State intentionally waited to bring charges to gain an unfair tactical advantage, and therefore, Defendant could not show his due process rights were violated; (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Watson" on Justia Law