Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") May 2005 order denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal and its March 2006 order denying his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). At issue was whether the BIA properly denied petitioner asylum and withholding of removal, whether the BIA properly denied petitioner's claim for protection under the CAT, and whether petitioner's due process rights were violated. The court held that the BIA properly concluded that petitioner's drug-trafficking offense rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding relief where the record did not compel the conclusion that probable cause was lacking. The court also held that the BIA properly denied petitioner protection under the CAT where substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that he was not likely to be tortured upon return to the Philippines. The court further held that there was nothing in the record compelling the conclusion that certain witness testimony somehow precluded petitioner from presenting his claims for relief.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after plaintiff was arrested for, among other things, possession of false identification documents, when he reported to an agent with the Enforcement Division of the Nevada Gaming Control Board ("NGCB") that MGM management had unlawfully denied him payment of his tickets at their casinos. The agent arrested plaintiff after casino records indicated that he had previously redeemed tickets under two different names and the charges against plaintiff were later dismissed. At issue was whether plaintiff's false arrest/false imprisonment, battery, and premises liability claims were properly dismissed under Nevada law and whether plaintiff's false arrest and conspiracy to commit false arrest claims were properly dismissed under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where plaintiff admitted to the agent that he possessed and used an unofficial identification card and credit card with a different name to gamble at several Las Vegas casinos; where plaintiff's admissions provided the agent with probable cause to believe he had committed a crime and therefore permitting the agent to arrest him; and where, as a result, plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state plausible claims for false arrest, conspiracy to commit false arrest, false imprisonment, and premises liability under state and federal law.

Defendant, a seventeen-year old high school student, appealed his convictions on felony murder after the murder of nine individuals, including six monks, at a Buddhist temple. Although defendant eventually confessed to participating in the nine murders, he challenged his confession, asserting that the Miranda advisements he was given were inadequate and that his confession was involuntary. The court held that the advisement provided to defendant, which consumed twelve pages of transcript and completely obfuscated the core precepts of Miranda, was inadequate. The court also held that that nearly thirteen hours of relentless overnight questioning of a sleep-deprived teenager by a tag team of officers overbore the will of that teen, rendering his confession involuntary. The court further concluded that the state court rulings to the contrary were an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of governing Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, having reviewed the facts and circumstances of the case in light of Florida v. Powell, the court reaffirmed its prior rulings.