Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Kevin Loughrin was convicted of bank fraud and other charges arising from a check and identity theft scheme. He appealed his conviction on two grounds: (1) the district court’s jury instructions on the bank fraud counts were erroneous because they did not contain a requirement that defendant intended to defraud a bank; and (2) the delay between his indictment and trial violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit rejected both of defendant's grounds for appeal and affirmed his conviction. View "United States v. Loughrin" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Samuel Barajas was convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and using a communication facility (a cellular telephone) in committing, causing, and facilitating the conspiracy. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison on the first two counts, four years concurrent on Count 3, and to five years’ supervised release on Counts 1 and 2, and one year on Count 3, again to run concurrently. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the wiretap surveillance and GPS pinging of certain cell phones. Finding no error at trial, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Barajas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant David Becker was pulled over by Defendant-Appellee Officer Jason Bateman in a parking lot in Heber City, Utah. A confrontation ensued which ended in Plaintiff being thrown to the ground and suffering a severe traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff brought suit against Officer Bateman, the Heber City Chief of Police in his official capacity, and Heber City under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging Officer Bateman used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He also asserted a claim for loss of consortium. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding Officer Bateman did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Because the violation of constitutional rights Plaintiff asserted was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officer Bateman. However, the district court erred in concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether a constitutional violation occurred. The grant of summary judgment in favor of the City was therefore reversed. On remand, the district court must determine whether Plaintiff can withstand summary judgment as to the second element of his municipal liability claim. Similarly, the district court must determine whether Mrs. Becker could maintain a cause of action for loss of consortium against the City in light of the Court's ruling that a reasonable jury could conclude Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated. View "Becker v. Bateman" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a crime committed over thirty years ago - the rape and murder of a teenager near an isolated dam outside of Carlsbad, New Mexico. Several young men were convicted of the crime, including Petitioner-Appellee Carl Case. Those convictions were upheld by the state courts in New Mexico both on direct and collateral review, and Petitioner's first habeas petition in federal court was denied. In 2008, he filed an application for permission to file a second habeas petition with the Tenth Circuit. He claimed constitutional error occurred at trial based on the discovery of new and previously undisclosed evidence involving a trial witness, and the recantation of trial testimony by two prosecution witnesses nearly twenty years after the trial. Upon careful review of the trial court record, the Court was "satisfied" that Petitioner's due process rights were not violated and that he received a fundamentally fair trial. The Court was also satisfied that the newly discovered evidence did not require a new trial. Accordingly, Petitioner court not satisfy the requirements of 2244(b)(2)(B). Because of that, his application for permission to file a second or successive habeas petition was denied. View "Case v. Hatch" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Amanda Addison and Melody St. Clair were tried for embezzling or converting funds from Northern Arapahoe Tribe’s Department of Social Services (DSS). On the third day of trial, the trial judge declared a mistrial as to St. Clair only and excluded her from the courtroom for the remainder of the trial. Addison was convicted. She appealed, raising two issues: (1) whether the exclusion of St. Clair violated Addison’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial; and, (2) the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate criminal intent. Because the district court had a substantial reason for excluding St. Clair, no Sixth Amendment violation occurred. The evidence was sufficient to prove her knowing and intentional taking of DSS funds. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Addison" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Adriana Berneike appealed the district court’s dismissal of her Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Utah Consumer Sales Protection Act (UCSPA), and breach of contract claims asserted against CitiMortgage, Inc. (Citi). In 2010, Plaintiff faxed twenty-eight different letters to Citi, her mortgage loan servicer, asserting that Citi was incorrectly billing her for overcharges and improper fees. She faxed a two more rounds of different letters, insisting Citi was overcharging her. Citi replied that Plaintiff's account was correct and that taxes and an escrow shortage caused billing fluctuation. Several months later, Plaintiff sent a third round of fort-seven different letters to Citi claiming billing errors. Altogether, Plaintiff faxed more than one hundred letters to Citi, and claimed that despite paying in full every bill she received, she continued to be overcharged and was facing foreclosure and bankruptcy. Plaintiff then filed suit in Utah state court. Among other damages, she sought $1,000 per violation of RESPA. Citi removed the case to federal court, and the court subsequently granted Citi's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. Finding that the federal court did not err by dismissing Plaintiff's claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Gray Peterson, a resident of Washington, applied for a concealed handgun license (CHL) from the ex officio sheriff of Denver, Colorado. Peterson's application was accordingly denied, prompting him to file suit against the Denver sheriff and Colorado's executive director of the Department of Public Safety. Peterson claimed that Colorado's policy with respect to non-resident CHL applicants violates the Second Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, and several other constitutional provisions. The district court concluded that the executive director of the Department of Public Safety was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because he had no connection to the enforcement of the challenged statute. Upon review of the district court order, the Tenth Circuit agreed with that conclusion. "In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizens' freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections. We reach the same conclusion with respect to Peterson's claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which is coterminous with his right to travel claim." View "Peterson v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Robert Garcia appealed a district court order that denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. On appeal, he argued that the warrant was invalid because: (1) it was stale; and (2) the address on the warrant did not match that of his residence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the warrant was executed before it became stale and within the time constraints of the federal rules. Further, because the warrant adopted the supporting affidavit's description of the residence, "the address mismatch [was] of no consequence." View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Former inmate Plaintiff-Appellee Tracy Keith filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of her rights under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was an inmate at the Topeka Correctional Facility between November 2006 and May 2010. While there, she participated in a vocational training program. Her instructor, Ananstacio Gallardo, engaged in unlawful sexual acts with her in 2007, and she became pregnant as a result. The Topeka Police Department then conducted an investigation which ultimately led to Mr. Gallardo pleading guilty to a charge of unlawful sexual relations and two charges of trafficking contraband. In 2011, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint alleging that prison employees violated her constitutional rights. Specifically, she alleged that Defendants created and allowed a policy or culture of sexual misconduct at the prison which placed her at substantial risk of harm, failed to take reasonable measures to abate the culture of sexual misconduct, and were deliberately indifferent to this substantial risk of harm. The district court granted qualified immunity to all remaining Defendants except Richard Koerner, the former warden, and Mr. Gallardo and entered a default judgment against Mr. Gallardo. Mr. Koerner appealed the district court's denial of his motion for qualified immunity. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. View "Keith v. Koerner, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Shawn Battle filed a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) following Amendments 750 and 759 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively adjusted his advisory Guidelines range. The district court granted the motion in part, granting a two-level reduction rather than the four-level reduction Petitioner requested. Although the court found at Petitioner's first sentencing that he was responsible for more than 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, the court did not make a specific quantity finding. At resentencing, the court held that Petitioner was responsible for 3.4 kilograms. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Petitioner's argument that the district court was barred from engaging in supplemental calculations of drug quantity in the 3582(c)(2) proceeding. However, the Court agreed that the record of the original sentencing, including the district court’s prior findings, did not support the attribution of 3.4 kilograms. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Battle" on Justia Law