Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a police officer acting under color of state law, took Plaintiff into protective custody, handcuffed him, transported him to a police station, and jailed him after attempting to evaluate whether Defendant was incapacitated by his consumption of alcohol. Plaintiff sued in federal district court, arguing that Defendant lacked probable cause to take him into protective custody. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, concluding that the law was not clearly established as to the need for probable cause. The First Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) the state of preexisting law established that a reasonable officer must have probable cause to take an individual into protective custody, handcuff him, transport him to a police station, and confine him in a jail cell; (2) an objectively reasonable officer in this case would not have had adequate reason to believe that Plaintiff, though intoxicated, was incapacitated; and (3) therefore, the qualified immunity defense was not available to Plaintiff. View "Alfano v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 1991, six men were shot, execution-style, in an illegal gambling club in Boston's Chinatown district; one (Lee) survived. Lee testified that Tran arrived at the club with one of the victims after they had been drinking. Tran left, then returned with Tham and Pham. All three had guns. Lee felt a gun at the back of his head, heard a bang, and lost consciousness. Two hours later, Lee regained consciousness. Arrest warrants issued, but the three had left the country. Authorities in China arrested Tran in 1999, and Tham in 2000. They were extradited. At trial, the Commonwealth was allowed to introduce, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, a passenger manifest and ticket inquiry showing that three weeks after the shooting, passengers named Tran, Tham, and Pham flew on United Airlines from New York to Hong Kong, having purchased their tickets together. Both were convicted and sentenced to five consecutive terms of life in prison, plus 24 to 25 years. State courts affirmed. They filed federal habeas petitions. The First Circuit affirmed denial of relief, rejecting arguments that the prosecution’s use of photocopies of the flight records violated the Sixth Amendment either because defendants had a right to confront someone who knew the airline's procedures for verifying passenger identities at the time of the flight or had a right to confront the person who created the records. View "Van Tran v. Roden" on Justia Law

After two trials, Appellant was found guilty of various federal drug and firearms-related crimes for his participation in six “Operation Guard Shack” drug deals orchestrated by the FBI. Each trial was presided over by a different district judge. Thus, there were two cases on appeal. In this present appeal from the first trial, Appellant argued that the district court committed several reversible errors. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it denied Appellant’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea-bargaining stage; (2) did not commit obvious error in failing to instruct the jury that it was required to find drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s sentencing manipulation claim; and (4) did not sentence Appellant to a grossly disproportionate sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "United States v. Rivera-Ruperto" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was New Hampshire Senate Bill 319 (the Act), which was signed into law in 2014. The Act permits a reproductive health care facility to demarcate a zone under certain conditions and forbids members of the public to knowingly enter or remain on the portion of the public way or sidewalk within that zone. After the U.S. Supreme Court decided in McCullen v. Coakley that a buffer zone statute in Massachusetts was unconstitutional, Plaintiffs commenced this action in federal district court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Act and to have the Act declared facially unconstitutional under McMullen. The statute, however, has never been activated or enforced. The district court dismissed the action. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction, holding that Plaintiffs have shown neither standing or ripeness. View "Reddy v. Foster" on Justia Law

Brian Blackden, a freelance photographer who sends photos to several regional-media outlets, including Belsito Communications (Belsito), and Belsito filed suit alleging that James Decker, a New Hampshire State Trooper, violated their constitutional rights when he seized Blackden’s camera without a warrant at the scene of a vehicle crash. The trial judge concluded that even if Decker’s actions were unconstitutional under current law, he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit because constitutional standards as applied to a situation like this one were unclear at the time of the challenged conduct. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Blackden failed to identify clearly established law as of the time of the challenged conduct showing beyond debate that the police officer’s specific acts violated the First Amendment. View "Belsito Communications, Inc v. Decker" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was arrested and charged with removability on the basis that he had remained in the United States beyond the six months permitted by his visa. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that certain documents were obtained as the result of an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. An immigration judge denied the motion to suppress, concluding that Petitioner did not present a prima facie case that the search and seizure leading to his arrest amounted to an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that, like the BIA, the Court need not decide whether there was any Fourth Amendment violation because, even if there were, the violation was not egregious. View "Corado-Arriaza v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Defendant filed a motion to suppress a pistol and ammunition found after a search conducted at his house, arguing that the affidavit submitted by a special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms supporting an application for a warrant to search his residence was misleading. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty, reserving his right to challenge the denial of his suppression motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, although certain aspects of the affidavit were troubling, the affidavit established probable cause by showing a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found at Defendant’s residence. View "United States v. Fleury" on Justia Law

On the fifth time before the First Circuit, Plaintiff, a United States citizen-resident of Puerto Rico, and his fellow plaintiffs challenged the denial of the right of Puerto Rico citizens to vote for representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives and their right to have five Puerto Rico representatives apportioned to that body. Plaintiffs further contended that the district court erred in refusing to convene a three-judge court to adjudicate their claims. When Plaintiff first raised the issue of congressional representation, a panel majority concluded that they were bound by past circuit decisions to find that Plaintiffs were not constitutionally entitled to the claimed right by means other than those specified for achieving statehood or by amendment. The First Circuit, noting that it was bound by precedent, affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to convene and three-judge court and dismissing the case on the merits; but (2) the three-judge-court issue should be reconsidered by the full court in an en banc rehearing of this case. View "Igartua v. Obama" on Justia Law

Mark Eves, the Maine Legislature Speaker of the House, obtained a contract of employment with Good Will-Hinckley (GWH), a Maine nonprofit that is largely funded by biennial grants from the state. Whether to disburse that grant money to GWH was left to the discretion of the Governor of Maine. Displeased at GWH’s decision to hire the Speaker, the Governor threatened to withhold GWH’s discretionary funding when payment would ordinarily be due. GWH subsequently terminated the Speaker’s employment contract. The Speaker sued the Governor for damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the Governor had retaliated against the Speaker’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. The federal district court dismissed all claims. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the Speaker’s federal claims on qualified immunity grounds; and (2) vacated the district court’s judgment with respect to the dismissal with prejudice of the Speaker’s state claim, which the Court remanded to the district court for a dismissal without prejudice, holding that this matter is best left to the Maine courts. View "Eves v. LePage" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in a Massachusetts state court, Appellant was convicted of unarmed robbery. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Appellant’s claim that certain identification procedures violated his constitutional rights. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to set aside his conviction, arguing that the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting certain identification evidence at his trial. The federal district court denied Appellant’s habeas petition, and the First Circuit granted a certificate of appealability. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s petition, holding that the Appeals Court did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in rejecting Appellant’s claim that the pre-trial identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive. View "Moore v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law