Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants-Appellants Adam Trestyn and Crystal Herren both challenged the district court proceedings that led to their guilty pleas for possession with the intent to distribute "ecstasy." Herren argued that the district court denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it refused to continue a suppression hearing until her attorney-of-choice was present. Both defendants argued that the district court denied their Fourth Amendment rights by refusing to suppress the drugs discovered in their minivan during a traffic stop. After a thorough review of the lower court's record, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did not deny Defendant Herren her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, but that the district court was wrong in denying Defendants' motion to suppress the drugs found during the traffic stop. The Court vacated Defendants' sentences and remanded their cases for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant Johnny Harrison was indicted on firearms charges. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discovered the firearm during a warrantless search of Plaintiff's apartment. On the day of the search, ATF Agents were dressed in plain clothes, and carried concealed weapons. The Agents conceded that they had no reason to believe firearms were in the apartment, but used that line to gain Plaintiff's consent to search. Plaintiff responded that he was unsure whether he could give consent to search. The Agents responded that they had "bigger fish to fry" than to simply "bust [Plaintiff] on a bag of weed." Plaintiff gave consent after that exchange, and subsequently Agents found the firearm that lead to Plaintiff's arrest. Plaintiff moved to suppress the evidence at trial, arguing that he had not voluntarily consented to the search. The district court held a hearing and agreed that the ATF's tactics to gain Plaintiff's consent rendered that consent involuntary. The court granted the motion to suppress, and the United States appealed. The Tenth Circuit considered the Agents' "bag of weed" statement in light of the circumstances presented at trial, and concluded that the district court did not err in finding Plaintiff's consent was involuntary. The Court affirmed the district court's order on Plaintiff's motion to suppress evidence.

Defendant Virgil Anderson-Bey applied for a writ of habeas corpus to the district court, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of robbing a sandwich shop employee, and that his sentence was improperly enhanced by an invalid prior conviction. The district court denied his application, but granted a Certificate of Appealablility (COA). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendantâs insufficient evidence claim amounted to a challenge to the state courtâs interpretation of state law, and therefore could not be the basis for federal habeas relief. Furthermore, the Court found his argument regarding his state conviction was unpersuasive. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs judgment.

Plaintiff-Appellant Peter Rosa sought a Certificate of Appealability (COA) so that he could challenge the district courtâs dismissal of his habeas petition. Plaintiff was charged with first-degree murder, tampering with evidence, and conspiracy stemming from the stabbing death of a wheelchair-bound inmate while incarcerated. He confessed to holding the victim while another inmate stabbed him over 200 times. Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to suppress the confession at trial and on appeal before the New Mexico Supreme Court. The trial judge found Plaintiff guilty on all charges and sentenced him to life. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on direct appeal. Plaintiff filed a state habeas petition in 2003 but the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Plaintiff raised five claims in his federal habeas petition, but abandoned two of them. The remaining claims were based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his two trial attorneys. The district court dismissed Plaintiffâs petition with prejudice, and denied a COA. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised the same ineffective assistance of counsel claims that were rejected by the federal district court. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff did not show that he was prejudiced by his counselâs performance. Accordingly, reasonable jurists would not find the lower courtâs rejection of a COA as debatable or wrong. The Court therefore affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions to deny Plaintiff a COA, and dismissed his appeal.

Petitioner Michael Selsor, an Oklahoma State prisoner, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the shooting of two clerks and the robbery of a convenience store in Tulsa in 1975. From 1975 to the present-day, Petitioner has sought judicial review of his convictions and sentence. His case has been circulated between the trial and appellate court for various constitutional challenges and alleged trial errors. Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the last act in his case: the district courtâs denial of his habeas petition. The Tenth Circuit engaged in an exhaustive review of Appellantâs case history dating back to the original trial in 1975, and found no errors that warranted the habeas writ or any other post-conviction relief Appellant sought. The Court affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions.

Congress enacted an elaborate system of registration and reporting requirements for individuals convicted of sex offenses. The law requires all sex offenders to register, regardless of whether their convictions were based on federal or state law. For those convicted on federal sex offenses, an enforcement provision provides that the failure to register or update a registration constitutes a new federal crime. Defendant Alden Yelloweagle was previously convicted of a federal sex offense. When he failed to register as required, he was indicted by federal officials under the enforcement provision. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment for numerous reasons. Two reasons he brought to the Tenth Circuit on appeal: first, he contended there is no provision of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to require all sex offenders to register; and secondly, even if the registration requirement is valid, Defendant contended that the criminal enforcement provision lacks a jurisdictional basis and therefore is unconstitutional. The district court denied Defendantâs motion to dismiss on both these claims. In his brief submitted to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant made no mention of his first argument; he only focused on the claim that Congress lacked the power to criminalize the failure-to-register provision. The Government argued that by shifting his focus on the criminalization of the requirement, Defendant conceded it is constitutional, and therefore valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the Government: â[w]hen we assume that the registration requirement is constitutional, it follows that the criminal statute enforcing compliance with that requirement is a valid exercise of Congressional authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.â For that reason, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dee Henshaw appealed the district courtâs decision to grant summary judgment to two Wayne County, Utah deputy sheriffs who arrested him in the course of enforcing a restraining order. Defendant Deputy Bliss and Co-Defendant Deputy Webster responded to a 911 call placed by Mrs. Henshaw. Deputy Bliss saw Plaintiff leaving Mrs. Henshawâs house. Deputy Webster arrived as a back-up officer. Both reviewed a copy of Mrs. Henshawâs restraining order against Plaintiff. Both deputies agreed the order was valid, and should be enforced and therefore arrested Plaintiff. Plaintiff was charged with violating the restraining order. At a hearing, the prosecution moved to dismiss the charge when it was determined the order was a civil restraining order and not a protective order, âwhich made it not enforceable as a crime.â The prosecutionâs motion was granted, and the matter was dismissed. Plainitff claims the deputiesâ actions violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted the deputiesâ motion for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from prosecution for carrying out their duties in furtherance of the judicial process. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court, finding that the deputies were immune under the âquasi-judicial immunity.â