Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

During a “shakedown” of several cells, Stateville guards handcuffed Anderson behind his back and ordered him to walk down a flight of stairs to wait in a holding area while his cell was searched. These stairs were “covered [with] food, milk, and other garbage, and had been for several days.” The guards refused Anderson’s request to help him walk. He slipped and fell down 13 stairs. He was knocked unconscious and suffered “continuing and permanent” injuries. Anderson sued the guards, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to the obvious risk, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed, reasoning that the risk was not substantial enough to violate the Eighth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit vacated, reasoning that the risk of serious harm involved in negotiating the stairs, strewn with litter and slick from milk, unaided and cuffed behind the back, was substantial. View "Anderson v. Morrison" on Justia Law

Weldon, Fields, and Roth pooled $120 to buy heroin from Weldon’s drug dealer. Roth drove. Weldon got out of Roth’s car, walked to the dealer’s car, gave the dealer the $120, and returned with the heroin. At Roth’s home, Fields mixed the heroin with water, divided it, and injected it into the three of them. Roth died as a result. Fields was tried, but argued that injecting Roth was not distribution; she was acquitted. Weldon pleaded guilty to having distributed an illegal drug, resulting in a death, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Because he agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of another person he received a prison sentence of only eight years. Three years later he moved to vacate his conviction on grounds that his lawyer had rendered ineffective assistance by persuading him to plead guilty. The Seventh Circuit vacated denial of the motion. Individuals who “simultaneously and jointly acquire possession of a drug for their own use, intending only to share it together,” are not distributors, “since both acquire possession from the outset and neither intends to distribute the drug to a third person.” Fields was acquitted and the defendants were participants in the same transaction. The insistence of Weldonʹs lawyer that a defense to the charge of distribution had no chance of success was constitutionally deficient. View "Weldon v. United States" on Justia Law

For 60 years, a butcher shop operated on property in Black Earth that is zoned for commercial use, as a legal nonconforming use. In 2001, BEM purchased the property. After 2009, the volume and frequency of slaughter increased. By 2011, neighbors were complaining about increased traffic, trucks blocking the road, livestock noise, foul odors, improper storage of animal parts, and the presence of offal, blood, and animal waste in the streets. Steers escaped from the facility three times and had to be shot dead on Village streets. In 2013, the Village held several public meetings, and, because citations had no effect on BEM’s behavior, ordered BEM to propose an acceptable plan for relocating its slaughter activities. BEM did not relocate. After several delays, the Village threatened litigation. As a result of that threat, the USDA refused to guarantee a bank loan to BEM. BEM lost its financing, closed, and sued the Village and board members. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Even if the threat of litigation could, itself, constitute a due process violation and were a sufficiently direct cause of BEM’s alleged deprivations, there is no evidence that the process accorded to BEM was inadequate. Procedural due process generally requires only “notice and an opportunity to be heard.” View "Black Earth Meat Mkt., LLC v. Village of Black Earth" on Justia Law

Sutton has been convicted of violent crimes in multiple separate Illinois prosecutions, including 1991 and 1997 convictions for attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual assault. The state concedes that it unlawfully collected a sample of Sutton’s blood during the 1991 prosecution and then used that blood sample in the 1997 prosecution. In his habeas conviction, relating to the 1997 case, the district court granted relief. The Seventh Circuit reversed, citing the inevitable discovery doctrine. Although the court order under which the blood was collected was not supported by probable cause, the blood (and thus the DNA) would inevitably have been produced under a state law that provided legal authority for collecting the sample. The relevant statute stated that persons convicted of certain sexual offenses “shall … be required to submit blood samples and saliva to the Illinois State Police.” (currently codified at 730 ILCS 5/5-4-3). View "Sutton v. Pfister" on Justia Law

In 2002, Nina Buckner was found brutally murdered in her home. Forensic testing confirmed that the blood on a hammer and knife found at the scene belonged to Buckner; the blood was also found on King’s clothes. Buckner’s neighbors reported seeing King near Buckner’s home the night of Buckner’s murder. When questioned, King gave multiple, very different, versions of his actions during that night. King was convicted of the first‐degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.The trial judge that presided over King’s trial and sentencing had represented King over 15 years earlier as an assistant public defender. King’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and denied review by the Illinois Supreme Court. King's petition for post‐conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court, affirmed on appeal, and denied review by the Illinois Supreme Court. Subsequently, King unsuccessfully petitioned for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, for not seeking substitution of the trial judge. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, noting that the judge had no independent recollection of King and that the evidence against King was overwhelming. King did not “fairly present” a federal due process claim of ineffective assistance in a complete round of state court review. View "King v. Pfister" on Justia Law

Illinois prisoner Petties was climbing stairs when he felt a “pop” and extreme pain in his ankle. At the prison infirmary, the examining physician prescribed Vicodin and crutches and a week of “lay-in.” The medical director, Dr. Carter, noted in the file that Petties had suffered an “Achilles tendon rupture” and modified the instructions, directing that Petties be scheduled for an MRI and orthopedic examination as an “urgent” matter. Prison lockdowns resulted in cancelation of three appointments. Eight weeks passed before he received an orthopedic boot. Petties claimed that a year later, he still experienced “serious pain, soreness, and stiffness” in his ankle. Petties argued that Carter was deliberately indifferent by failing to immobilize his ankle with a boot or cast immediately and that a physician he saw later was deliberately indifference in not ordering physical therapy despite a recommendation. The Seventh Circuit initially affirmed summary judgment in favor of the doctors, but on rehearing, en banc, reversed. Even if a doctor denies knowing that he was exposing a plaintiff to a substantial risk of serious harm, evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer a doctor knew he was providing deficient treatment is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Petties produced sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the doctors knew the care they were providing was insufficient. View "Petties v. Carter" on Justia Law

In 1996, a jury convicted Poe of narcotics‐related offenses, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), 21 U.S.C. 848(c). In 1999, the Supreme Court decided Richardson v. United States, rendering the CCE jury instructions used in Poe’s trial erroneous: “You must unanimously find that the defendant committed at least two violations of the federal drug laws, but you do not have to agree on which two violations.” Poe sought habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenging his conviction under Richardson. Fourteen months later, the district court dismissed Poe’s petition without prejudice, because he should have filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Poe’s June 18, 2001 habeas petition, under section 2255, was denied as time‐barred. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2006. In 2014, Poe filed a new section 2241 petition, citing Alleyne v. United States (2013). The district court denied his petition, again for not filing it under section 2255. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Construing Poe’s petition as a successive one under section 2255 would be futile; that section allows a successive motion for “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review.” View "Poe v. LaRiva" on Justia Law

The Union erected a giant inflatable rat and an inflatable fat cat during a labor dispute in Grand Chute, Wisconsin. Both are staked to the ground in the highway median, to prevent the wind from blowing them away. Grand Chute forbids private signs on the public way and defines signs to mean “[a]ny structure, part thereof, or device attached thereto” that conveys a message. The Union removed them at the town's request and filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the First Amendment. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and, a year later, granted the town summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit vacated, reasoning that the case may be moot because the construction that led to the use of demonstrative inflatables was complete; the Union was no longer picketing. The court also noted that the town amended its code and changed the definition of a sign. If the Union persists in seeking damages, the district court must weigh the probability of a fresh dispute between this union and Grand Chute and the risk that it would be over too quickly to allow judicial review to apply the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine and must address the validity of current ordinances, rather than one that was changed before the final judgment. View "Constr. & Gen. Laborers' Local Union v. Town of Grand Chute" on Justia Law

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Riano was a hospital corpsman in the Navy. As a civilian, he became a registered nurse. In 2004 he began working as a registered nurse for the Veterans Health Administration, While examining male patients for genital warts, Riano manipulated their penises with his hands, attempting to induce erections. He used words like “pecker” and “balls,” rather than medical terms. The agency found his examination technique and his language to be inappropriate. His employment was terminated. He appealed and was given a hearing that included representation by counsel, live testimony from medical experts, written testimony from patients, and a written report from an investigator who had interviewed the patients. The appeals board affirmed his termination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Riano’s argument that he was not allowed to call patients to testify live to show that some patients were comfortable with his technique and language or that complaining patients had ulterior motives. The board’s decision to affirm Riano’s termination was based on its determination that his technique and language were inappropriate. That was a professional judgment that did not turn on the patients’ subjective views. View "Riano v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Someone used the email address gslabs@hotmail.com to contact a Vietnamese website in an attempt to buy sassafras oil, a chemical that can be used to make the illegal drug known as ecstasy. The website was being monitored by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which began an investigation that culminated in Caira being convicted on drug charges. A key step in the investigation was learning that Caira was the person behind the gslabs@hotmail.com address. The DEA made that discovery by issuing administrative subpoenas to technology companies, without getting a warrant. The district court denied a motion to suppress and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the DEA conducted an “unreasonable search” in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Because Caira voluntarily shared the relevant information with technology companies, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, so his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court characterized as “harmless” the district court’s errors imposing conditions of supervised release without justifying them on the record. Caira is serving a life sentence for another conviction. He is not expected to be released from prison so the conditions are not expected to be imposed. View "United States v. Caira" on Justia Law