Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2003, a Wisconsin state court convicted Jordan of first‐degree reckless homicide, three counts of first‐degree endangerment, and as a felon in possession of a firearm, based on the shooting of Robinson, who was sitting in a car with three other people when he was killed by shots from a passing car. Before trial, Jordan repeatedly complained about his appointed attorney, Bohach. After a hearing, at which Jordan represented himself, the court denied Jordan’s motion asking for either appointment of new counsel, a delay to enable Bohach to do research Jordan thought necessary, or to waive counsel and represent himself. Jordan had an eighth‐grade education, but a fourth‐grade reading ability. At trial, “Bohach gave Jordan reason to be displeased.” In its closing argument, the prosecution made statements vouching for the detectives’ credibility and urged the jury to consider who had the most to lose—Jordan or the prosecutor. Bohach failed to object. After exhausting state remedies, Jordan filed an unsuccessful federal habeas petition. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for a hearing concerning Jordan’s ineffective assistance claim. The court affirmed with respect to self-representation. It was reasonable for the court to infer that Jordan would not be able to use necessary documents, which would prevent him from effectively representing himself. View "Jordan v. Hepp" on Justia Law

A woman reported that her former boyfriend, Giddeon, had attacked and threatened to shoot her. The police searched near the home without success, but later spotted a woman (Giddeon’s sister) leaving the victim’s house and entering a car in which the police could see other occupants. The police followed, stopped the car, recognized Giddeon among the passengers, handcuffed him, and put him in their squad car. The driver consented to a search that revealed a shopping bag that contained a gun wrapped in clothing. Giddeon, told of the discovery, admitted after a half hour that it was his gun. In Wisconsin state court he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and disorderly conduct and was sentenced to five years in prison. In Giddeon’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the defendants conceded that the police lacked probable cause to stop the car. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. While the search was consensual, Giddeon's arrest in a public place was not unlawful, and Giddeon’s discomfort in sitting in the squad car for 30 minutes on a hot day was not disabling, the stop was an unreasonable seizure of Giddeon’s person, entitling him to damages. View "Giddeon v. Flynn" on Justia Law

In 1993, Figgs was convicted of murder, committed while on bond for a drug offense. His 40-year sentence was to be served consecutively to his four-year sentence for the drug offense and was to include credit for time served prior to conviction. His planned release date of November 23, 2013, was apparently calculated under the mistaken belief that he had violated the terms of his mandatory supervised release on the drug charge. He was released on June 28, 2012, having survived summary judgment in his state‐court mandamus proceeding, in which he challenged his release date. Figgs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the possibility that he was being held unlawfully. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the warden, whose conduct did not demonstrate a sufficiently culpable state of mind. The court vacated as to the record office supervisor, who did not attempt to calculate Figgs’s sentence until June 2012, nor thoroughly review Figgs’s master file; a jury could find her minimal action so ineffectual that it amounted to criminal recklessness. Her conduct violated Figgs's established constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; the supervisor is not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Figgs v. Dawson" on Justia Law

Chicago police learned from an informant that Anthony was selling crack cocaine from his apartment and answered the door carrying a handgun during drug transactions. They obtained a search warrant. The SWAT team executed a “High Risk Warrant Services” form. The plan called for a team of 20 officers to effect a “dynamic entry” to secure the premises within 30 seconds and authorized the use of “flashbang” grenades. The team executed the warrant while Flournoy was visiting her son “Tony,” with his girlfriend and another of Flournoy’s sons. An officer knocked on the door and yelled, “Chicago police, search warrant!” When no one answered after several seconds, officers breached the door with a battering ram and cleared the windows. Officer Colbenson saw Flournoy move toward the door. Officer Quinn looked through the doorway, did not see anyone, and tossed a flashbang inside. The blast severely wounded Flournoy’s leg. Officers administered first aid until Flournoy was transported. A search uncovered narcotics and a loaded handgun. In Flournoy’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the jury ruled in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The jury’s verdict was supported by the record; the exclusion of a handwritten notation--two flashbangs deployed––on one of Colbenson’s typed reports was not an abuse of discretion. A jury statement that “While we agree that this was a horrible instance ... the errors made by the Chicago Police Department as a whole cannot fall on the shoulders of these two defendants” was consistent with the verdict. View "Flournoy v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

From 2008-2010, the FBI and Chicago Police Department conducted a narcotics investigation, “Operation Blue Knight.” As the operation was wrapping up, Officer O’Donnell applied for dozens of arrest warrants, including one for White. Other officers had observed White and his brother sell heroin to an informant. The observations were in a more comprehensive report (NAGIS) that O’Donnell used as the basis for his arrest warrant application. White was arrested, but the charge was dropped. He then brought a civil rights lawsuit alleging that O’Donnell’s actions and a city policy violated his Fourth Amendment rights. White’s claims are based on a theory that O’Donnell failed to present the judge who issued the warrant enough information to establish probable cause for the arrest. The district court dismissed the claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. O’Donnell’s written application for an arrest warrant, supported by his oral testimony about the NAGIS report of the surveillance of the drug deal, provided probable cause for the warrant. Probable cause also establishes that White did not suffer a constitutional injury, which was a necessary element of his “Monell claim” against the city. View "White v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Neita formerly owned and operated a dog-grooming business and rescue shelter. In 2012, he went to Chicago’s Department of Animal Care and Control to surrender a dog that had killed another dog and a dog that had become ill after whelping puppies. Travis, an Animal Control employee, called the police. Officers arrested and searched Neita, then searched his vehicle, and his business premises. Neita was charged with animal cruelty and 13 counts of violating an animal owner’s duties under Illinois law. He was found not guilty on all counts. After his acquittal, Neita suedTravis, the officers, and the city. The judge dismissed the federal claims, holding that Neita not adequately pled any constitutional violation and relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the complaint’s allegations sufficient to state 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims for false arrest and illegal searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Neita alleged that he surrendered two dogs, neither of which showed signs of abuse or neglect, and was arrested without any evidence that he had mistreated either dog. If these allegations are true, no reasonable person would have cause to believe that Neita had abused or neglected an animal. View "Neita v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Wilson and Hanson, business partners, had a property ownership dispute. Warren County issued a letter stating that real property occupied by Wilson had to be cleaned up, but sent the letter to Hanson. Hanson, attorney Johnson, and Reiners, photographed Wilson’s property. Wilson, who suffers from psychological disorders, became upset and was hospitalized. Wilson’s friend called State’s Attorney Algren, who stated that the men could not take Wilson's property without a court order. Hanson, through Johnson, sought such an order, but was unsuccessful because the judge was unavailable. Johnson told Algren about the suit but did not disclose his failure to get the order. When the men began removing items, Wilson called the sheriff’s department, which dispatched Carithers, who believed that Hanson owned the property. Johnson told Carithers that they had a legal right to remove property and handed him a stack of "court papers." Carithers called Algren, who advised him that if Johnson had the proper papers, they were within their rights. Wilson suffered another anxiety attack. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment, rejecting Wilson’s claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Hanson, Johnson, Reiners, the county, Carithers, and Algren, and dismissal of a Fair Housing Act claim against the three private defendants.There was insufficient raise the inference that the private defendants would not have removed Wilson's property if he wasn’t disabled or that they acted under color of law. View "Wilson v. Warren County" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a prisoner and a Wiccan, was denied permission to wear a “pentacle medallion,”a five-pointed silver star set in a circle less than an inch in diameter. The pentacle medallion is to the Wiccan religion what the cross is to many Christians. Plaintiff’s medallion was small enough to comply with prison regulations regarding jewelry; the day after issuing him a jewelry retention permit, the prison confiscated the medallion. In plaintiff’s suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc–1, the warden argued that the Illinois Department of Corrections prohibits inmates from possessing “five and six-point star symbols” because they are usable as gang identifiers. Without addressing the merits of the suit or the defense, the district judge denied a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that RLUIPA’s “substantial burden” inquiry asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious exercise, not whether the claimant is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise. The court noted that the plaintiff is willing to wear his medallion under his shirt whenever he’s outside his cell to protect himself from being identified as a gang member and had tendered an affidavit from another Wiccan prisoner, who attested that he has worn his medallion in maximum security prisons since 1998 without experiencing threats or violence. View "Knowles v. Pfister" on Justia Law

Ohio tollways assess a toll only when a driver exits a highway. Illinois’ toll system assesses periodic tolls as a driver continues on the highway and allows drivers to use electronic transponders. At each toll plaza, Illinois has full‐speed lanes for transponder users and lanes for drivers who stop and pay cash. If a driver without a transponder uses a transponder lane, there is a seven‐day grace period for payment online or by mail, without incurring a fine, after which the car's owner incurs a $20 fine per violation. If an owner incurs three fines in two years, the tollway sends a notice, showing the date, time, and location of each violation, and explaining the right to contest the violations at a hearing. Toll evasion is a strict liability and vicarious liability offense. Transponder users are granted a second grace period: After notice is mailed, transponder users have until the due date on the notice to pay their missed tolls and update their account information to avoid fines. In December 2013, an Ohio resident drove to Chicago. He alleges that there was no signage informing him of how Illinoisʹ toll system worked, and that he did not understand the signage at the toll plazas. Plaintiff used the transponder lanes and missed three tolls before he realized his mistake. He called the tollway authority and was told that no violations appeared in the database. Weeks later, he received notice of the violations and his right to a hearing. Plaintiff paid $64.50, then filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging equal protection and due process violations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, applying the rational basis test. View "Cochran v. Ill. State Toll Highway Auth." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former detainees, brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Cook County, claiming that the level of dental care at the Jail demonstrated deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court originally certified two classes of plaintiffs under FRCP 23, but later decertified one class and modified the other, finding that the Jail’s implementation of a consent order with the Department of Justice eliminated a common question concerning inadequate staffing and brought care into compliance with national standards. The court could not find another common factor among the claims, noting that “treatment of dental pain may fall below the deliberate indifference threshold for many reasons and at many stages.” The court then determined that the detainees’ motion for injunctive relief was moot. While an appeal was pending, the detainees unsuccessfully moved for a new trial (FRCP 60(b)) based on newly discovered evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding decertification of the classes because of the lack of a common issue of fact or law. The detainees’ questions do not point to the type of systematic and gross deficiency that would lead to a finding that all detainees are effectively denied treatment; they did not allege a specific policy that directly causes delay, nor a pattern of egregious delays across the entire class. Filing a Rule 60(b) motion during the interlocutory appeal was inappropriate; there was no final judgment in the case. View "Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County" on Justia Law