Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

F.S. was found guilty by a jury of statutory sodomy of an 11-year-old victim and sentenced to five years in prison. After completing her sentence and parole, she was subjected to lifetime electronic monitoring by the Missouri Department of Corrections under section 217.735. This monitoring involves wearing an ankle bracelet that tracks her location via GPS. F.S. challenged the constitutionality of this lifetime monitoring requirement, arguing it violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The Circuit Court of Cole County upheld the constitutionality of section 217.735. During the bench trial, the court received stipulated facts, exhibits, and testimony from experts. The court found that GPS monitoring can deter recidivism among sex offenders by enforcing exclusion zones and increasing the certainty of legal repercussions. The court also noted that F.S. had not reoffended since completing parole but found that sex offenders with child victims tend to reoffend over a longer period. The court concluded that the GPS monitoring was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, given F.S.'s diminished expectation of privacy as a convicted sex offender and the state's legitimate interest in protecting potential victims.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court held that F.S. failed to present particularized evidence showing that section 217.735 was unconstitutionally applied to her circumstances. The court emphasized that F.S.'s status as a female offender and her lack of reoffending did not suffice to demonstrate that the statute was unreasonable as applied to her. The court concluded that the statute did not clearly contravene any specific constitutional provision and upheld the lifetime monitoring requirement. View "F.S. v. Missouri Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole" on Justia Law

In the early morning, a police officer stopped Chad Thomas for driving with a broken headlight. During the stop, Thomas exhibited unusual behavior, such as rolling down the rear window instead of the front, being unable to find his driver’s license, and acting nervously. The officer conducted a pat-down search, during which Thomas mentioned he might have a "sharp," a term the officer associated with drug use. Thomas's behavior, including blocking the officer's view and lying about having his license, led the officer to call for a canine unit, which eventually alerted to the presence of drugs.The Circuit Court of Saline County overruled Thomas's motion to suppress the evidence found during the search, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on Thomas's behavior. The court found that the extension of the stop was justified by Thomas's actions and the need to verify his identity and the outstanding warrant. The court admitted the evidence, and the jury found Thomas guilty of possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Thomas was sentenced to 10 years in prison.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop based on the totality of Thomas's behavior, which included nervousness, evasive actions, and inconsistent statements. The court found that the detention and subsequent search were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, as the officer's actions were justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. View "State vs. Thomas" on Justia Law

In 1998, the defendant fatally stabbed the victim during a burglary. The victim's belongings were found in the defendant's vehicle, and two witnesses testified that the defendant confessed to the crime. In 2001, a jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder and other charges, sentencing him to death. Over the next 23 years, the defendant's claims of actual innocence and constitutional errors were repeatedly rejected by state and federal courts.The defendant's direct appeal was denied by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2003, and his post-conviction relief appeal was denied in 2005. The federal district court initially granted habeas relief, but the Eighth Circuit reversed this decision in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2013. Subsequent habeas petitions and requests for DNA testing were also denied by the Missouri Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court found no clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence or constitutional error that would undermine confidence in the original judgment. The court noted that recent DNA testing did not support the defendant's claim of innocence and that the evidence showed the killer wore gloves, which aligned with the trial testimony. The court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Batson violations, as these issues had been previously adjudicated and found to be without merit.The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, denying the motion to vacate or set aside the conviction and sentence. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate actual innocence or constitutional error by clear and convincing evidence. The motion for a stay of execution was overruled as moot. View "Prosecuting Attorney, 21st Judicial Circuit, ex rel. Williams v. State of Missouri" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the form and procedural requirements of an initiative petition for Amendment 3, which aims to protect reproductive freedom. The Attorney General and the Secretary of State had approved the form of the petition in March 2023. Proponents of the amendment collected the necessary signatures, and the Secretary of State certified the petition for the 2024 general election ballot. Opponents challenged the certification, claiming the petition failed to include all constitutional provisions and statutes that might be affected if the amendment were approved.The Circuit Court of Cole County ruled in favor of the opponents, finding that the petition did not meet the requirements of article III, section 50 of the Missouri Constitution and section 116.050.2(2). The court ordered the amendment removed from the ballot. Proponents appealed, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri.The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that article III, section 50 requires a petition proposing a constitutional amendment to identify only those existing sections of the constitution that are in direct conflict with the proposed amendment. The court found that Amendment 3 did not purport to repeal any existing constitutional provision and was not in direct conflict with any existing constitutional article or section. The court also rejected the opponents' claim that Amendment 3 violated the "single subject" requirement, finding that all provisions of the amendment related to the single subject of protecting reproductive freedom.The court concluded that the Secretary of State's certification of Amendment 3 was correct and ordered the amendment to be placed on the 2024 general election ballot. View "Coleman v. Ashcroft" on Justia Law

In 1997, John Doe pleaded guilty to two class C felonies: deviate sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the first degree. He was placed on probation for five years and registered as a sex offender under the Missouri Sex Offender Registry Act (MO-SORA). After completing probation in 2002, his criminal records were sealed. Despite this, Doe remained on the sex offender registry. Over the years, MO-SORA was amended to include more stringent requirements, such as public disclosure of registrants' information, in-person reporting, and lifetime registration for certain offenses.Doe filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, arguing that the amendments to MO-SORA violated his substantive due process rights and constituted an ex post facto law. The circuit court ruled against Doe on all claims, leading to his appeal.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that Doe has no fundamental right to privacy in the information required by the registry, as the information was already public before his records were sealed. The court found that MO-SORA is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting children and public safety. Additionally, the court determined that MO-SORA is civil in nature and does not constitute a punitive ex post facto law. The court concluded that the registration requirements, including lifetime registration and in-person reporting, are not excessive and serve the non-punitive purpose of public safety. Therefore, the court upheld the constitutionality of MO-SORA's registration requirements. View "Doe v. Olson" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of appellants, collectively referred to as "Challengers", who appealed judgments declaring section 67.1175.1 of the Missouri Statutes constitutionally invalid. This provision, in conjunction with section 67.1177, required a political subdivision to grant public money to a private entity, which was deemed to violate article VI, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court attempted to rectify the constitutional invalidity by modifying section 67.1175.1. The Challengers, however, argued that despite the modification, the sections still required a political subdivision to grant public money to a private entity in violation of the constitution. They further argued that the entire statutory scheme must be struck down because the sections were not severable.The circuit court had declared section 67.1175.1 constitutionally invalid because it mandated the lake area business districts to transfer tax funds to the advisory board, a private nonprofit entity. The court modified the section by removing the phrase "which shall be a nonprofit entity". The Challengers appealed this decision, arguing that the modified sections still violated the constitution.The Supreme Court of Missouri found that the circuit court erred in modifying section 67.1175.1. The court concluded that the section, as modified, and section 67.1177, still required political subdivisions to grant public money to a private entity, violating the Missouri Constitution. The court also concluded that the void provisions were not severable from the remaining provisions of the statutory scheme. As a result, the entire statutory scheme was declared constitutionally invalid. The circuit court’s judgment was reversed, and the Supreme Court entered the judgment the circuit court should have entered, declaring sections 67.1170, 67.1175, 67.1177, and 67.1170 constitutionally invalid and void in their entireties. View "Salamun v. The Camden County Clerk" on Justia Law

On December 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued an execution warrant for Brian Dorsey, who is serving a death sentence for two counts of first-degree murder. Subsequently, Dorsey filed two petitions for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he is innocent as he was incapable of deliberation due to drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offenses, that his trial counsel was ineffective due to a conflict of interest resulting from a flat-fee arrangement, and that his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment as he belongs to a unique class of persons for whom the penological goals supporting capital punishment are no longer met.The Court found that Dorsey failed to present any legally cognizable claims for habeas relief. He did not deny committing the murders and failed to establish that he was actually innocent of first-degree murder. The Court had previously found Dorsey's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest to be without merit, and he was procedurally barred from raising this claim again. Lastly, Dorsey's Eighth Amendment claim was deemed without merit and was interpreted as a plea for clemency, which is beyond the Court's review and authority. Therefore, both petitions for writ of habeas corpus were denied. View "State ex rel. Dorsey vs. Vandergriff" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed a lower court's decision that a redistricting plan for the Missouri Senate, which was prepared by a judicial redistricting commission, met constitutional requirements. The appellants, residents of districts impacted by the redistricting, argued that the plan violated the community preservation requirement of the Missouri Constitution by splitting certain communities into different senatorial districts. The court found the appellants did not meet their burden of proving the plan was clearly and undoubtedly unconstitutional. The court noted that the constitution allows for some flexibility in the redistricting process and that the plan need not achieve absolute perfection. The court concluded that the redistricting plan did not violate the constitutional requirements and was not the result of partisan or racial gerrymandering. View "Faatz v. Ashcroft" on Justia Law

In Missouri, Planned Parenthood and other affiliated health organizations sought a declaratory judgment declaring House Bill No. 3014 (HB 3014) unconstitutional and requested injunctive relief to prevent its implementation and enforcement. HB 3014 was a bill passed by the Missouri General Assembly that would cut Medicaid funding for abortion providers and their affiliates, including Planned Parenthood. The plaintiffs alleged that the bill violated the single subject requirement and the equal protection clause of the Missouri Constitution. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the decision of the lower court, which had ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood on both constitutional claims. The state appealed on procedural grounds, alleging that Planned Parenthood failed to exhaust administrative remedies, lacked standing, and waived its right to bring these claims. The state also argued the bill did not violate the single subject or equal protection provisions of the Missouri Constitution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, affirming the lower court's ruling. View "Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region vs. Knodell" on Justia Law

In the case of City of St. Louis and Heather Taylor (“Appellants”) versus State of Missouri (“State”), the Supreme Court of Missouri analyzed Senate Bill No. 26 (“SB 26”) that was challenged for being unconstitutional. SB 26, introduced in December 2020 and signed into law in July 2021, contained 88 sections related to public safety, including procedures for imposing discipline on law enforcement officers and provisions for the offense of “unlawful traffic interference.”Appellants argued that SB 26 violated the Missouri Constitution on several grounds, including that it violated the original-purpose and single-subject rules, that it created an unfunded mandate, that it imposed additional duties on officers and employees of a constitutional charter city, that it used public funds for private purposes, and that it created unequal treatment between law enforcement officers and other city employees.The Supreme Court of Missouri found that the City had sufficiently pleaded the elements of a Hancock Amendment violation, which prohibits the state from requiring new or expanded activities by counties and other political subdivisions without full state financing. Therefore, the circuit court's judgment was reversed on this point and the case was remanded for further proceedings.However, the court affirmed the judgment with respect to Appellants' other points. It found that SB 26 had the same purpose as enacted as introduced, did not impose new duties on city employees or allocate funds for public purposes, and had a rational basis for treating law enforcement officers differently from other city employees. The court also found that SB 26 did not violate the original-purpose and single-subject rules, did not impose additional duties on officers and employees of a constitutional charter city, did not use public funds for private purposes, and did not create unequal treatment between law enforcement officers and other city employees. View "City of St. Louis v. State" on Justia Law