Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Kankakee County Sheriff has a written policy requiring a strip search of every arrestee before that person enters the detention center’s general population. The policy permits manual body-cavity inspections of some arrestees. Arrestees filed suit to contest the policy as applied to persons whose custody has not yet been approved by a judge. The district judge certified a class: “All persons held in the custody of the Sheriff of Kankakee County from April 20, 2010 to the date of entry of judgment who, following a warrantless arrest, were strip searched in advance of a judicial determination of probable cause,” but later dismissed, finding the policy valid as applied to the class, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision, Florence v. Burlington County. The Seventh Circuit vacated, reasoning that the written policy may be valid, while its application is not. The district judge implied that the class had forfeited its opportunity to contest how the policy works in practice, but when the suit began, and the definition was proposed, class counsel had no reason to think that the jail’s staff was doing something other than what the written policy required. Two members of the class contend that they were arrested, strip searched, and then immediately released. View "Fonder v. Kankakee County" on Justia Law

In 1990 Schmidt, then age 27, was convicted in a Wisconsin state court of raping a woman multiple times, burglarizing her apartment, falsely imprisoning her, and intimidating her as a witness. He was sentenced to prison and paroled in 2003. His parole was revoked five years later as a result of violation of its terms: he viewed sexually explicit materials on the Internet and was expelled from a treatment program for sexually violent persons. He returned to prison. As his sentence was drawing to an end, the state had him tried civilly on the ground that he was a sexually violent person as a consequence of mental disorder. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. 980.06, he was committed for an indefinite period to a secure treatment center. In 2014, having appealed the civil commitment unsuccessfully in the state courts, Schmidt sought federal habeas corpus, claiming that the state violated his due process rights by presenting the jury with evidence of his past sexual misconduct, the prejudicial effect of which outweighed its probative value. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Schmidt’s constitutional rights were not infringed by the presentation at his civil commitment trial of the detailed first-person accounts of his crimes. View "Schmidt v. McCullough" on Justia Law

Twenty-year-veteran Deputy Yahnke supported the Sheriff’s opponent in a 2006 election. The prior Sheriff had approved Yahnke’s request to work as the part-time Maple Park police chief. After the new Sheriff took office, Yahnke was injured while working as a Deputy Sheriff and began receiving disability benefits. The Sheriff advised Yahnke that his secondary employment was suspended until he could return to work in the Sheriff’s office. At a party, Yahnke openly discussed running for the Sheriff’s position in 2010. Based on the Sheriff’s inquiry, the Illinois Attorney General concluded that secondary employment presented a potential conflict of interest. The Sheriff initiated an investigation, which concluded that Yahnke continued to work for Maple Park while his secondary employment was suspended. The Sheriff notified Yahnke that he was seeking his removal for cause. After the Sheriff terminated Yahnke’s employment, Yahnke sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the due process claim but vacated on the political affiliation count. A process existed for Yahnke to challenge his termination: a hearing before the Merit Commission or a grievance followed by arbitration The finder of fact could conclude that the Sheriff rejected lesser sanctions in favor of termination because Yahnke expressed a desire to run against the Sheriff, which is enough to defeat summary judgment. View "Yahnke v. County of Kane" on Justia Law

On July 4, 2002, Cox was standing outside a Chicago restaurant when he was gunned down by two men. Two women driving cars near the scene saw the murder and the shooters’ faces. Less than two months later, both women independently chose Blackmon’s photograph out of arrays. They repeated those identifications at a live line-up and again at trial. Primarily on the strength of their testimony, Blackmon was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Blackmon petitioned the state courts for post-conviction relief, arguing that his attorney was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to present eyewitness and alibi testimony, and in the alternative, that he was actually innocent. The state courts summarily denied relief. Blackmon then unsuccessfully sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Seventh Circuit vacated the denial of habeas relief and remanded for determination of whether Blackmon “is actually ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” The record supported conclusions that Blackmon’s trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to investigate alibi witnesses and that the state court’s summary dismissal of the claim was unreasonable. Because of that summary dismissal, the alibi witnesses have not yet been tested in any adversary proceeding. View "Blackmon v. Williams" on Justia Law

Left Field publishes Chicago Baseball magazine, producing four issues per baseball season. Copies are sold for $2 outside Wrigley Field before the Chicago Cubs’ home games. On the day of the Cubs’ 2015 home opener, Chicago police officer Voulgaris saw Left Field’s editor, Smerge, selling the magazine at the corner of Clark and Addison streets. Voulgaris told Smerge to move across the street to comply with Chicago’s Adjacent Sidewalks Ordinance, which forbids all peddling on the streets adjacent to Wrigley Field. Smerge refused to move and was ticketed. Left Field sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, contending that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Chicago agreed not to enforce the ordinance pending a decision. The 2015 season ran its course. As the playoffs began, the district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction, noting the density of the area around the field and the tight passages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The ordinance does not regulate speech. It regulates peddling, without regard to what the peddler sells. The court noted that Left Field has never applied for a license: while additional issues could arise if the ordinance were applied to newspapers, the court expressed doubt that it would be applied to a newspaper. View "Left Field Media LLC v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Thomas was convicted of the 2001 murder of Shakir. In 2005, after his conviction was final, Thomas received a letter informing him that unidentified gang members told police that Thomas did not commit the murder and that the shooter was Pinkston, a drug dealer. Thomas filed an unsuccessful state court petition for post‐conviction relief, arguing that he was actually innocent in light of the newly discovered evidence. Thomas filed a second state court petition in 2007, this time alleging that the government withheld evidence that the officer was told that Pinkston was the shooter in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The state court held that the claim was defaulted; Thomas had not raised it in his first petition. The district court denied federal habeas corpus petition raising the Brady claim, holding that it was procedurally defaulted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt and the questionable reliability of his alibi, it was not more likely than not that a jury would have acquitted Thomas based solely on evidence that unidentified gang members told someone who told someone that Thomas did not commit the murder. Thomas’s gateway claim of actual innocence was, therefore, insufficient to excuse his procedural default. View "Thomas v. Williams" on Justia Law

Milwaukee police saw a car stopped within 15 feet of a crosswalk, which is unlawful unless the car is “actually engaged in loading or unloading or in receiving or discharging passengers”. One police car drew up parallel to the stopped car, and another drew up behind. Shining lights through the car’s windows (it was after sunset), police saw a passenger in the back seat try to hide a firearm. Johnson, the passenger, was prosecuted for possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). After the district court denied his motion to suppress the gun, Johnson entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the statutory exception for receiving or discharging cargo or passengers means that the police could not have probable cause until they had observed the car long enough to know that it was not within the scope of the exception. The police would have discovered the same evidence without a seizure because any officer was free to walk up to the parked car, which lacking a driver, was not going anywhere. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Becker sued Evansville, Indiana police officer Elfreich under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging Elfreich used excessive force in arresting him because, after Becker had surrendered, Elfreich pulled him down three steps and placed his knee on his back while allowing a police dog to continue to bite him. Officers had arrived with an arrest warrant, which alleged that three weeks earlier Becker had held a knife to his brother-in-law’s neck and threatened to kill him. Elfreich claimed that he released the dog only after Becker failed to respond to warnings to come out of hiding and that the dog could not hear the release command because of screaming; he argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not constitute excessive force or, alternatively, that it did not violate clearly established constitutional law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of Elfreich’s motion for summary judgment. A jury could reasonably find the force was excessive; it was clearly established at the time of Becker’s arrest that no more than minimal force was permissible to arrest a non-resisting, or passively resisting, suspect. View "Becker v. Effriechs" on Justia Law

McDonald was diagnosed with arthritis and high cholesterol while serving a life sentence at Stateville Correctional Center in Illinois. For 10 years, he received a low-cholesterol diet planned by a prison dietician In 2009, a new warden discharged the dietician and cancelled all special diets; decreased the frequency of outdoor recreation for inmates; and altered the prison’s job-assignment policy to restrict inmates from working in a particular job for more than one year. McDonald filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Equal Protection Clause (inmates at the other Illinois maximum-security prisons were allowed to have prescription diets and more time for outdoor recreation). The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. The wardens were not entitled to summary judgment on McDonald’s claim concerning the cancellation of his prescription diet. View "McDonald v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Cairel and Johnson, lawfully repossessing cars, were stopped for a traffic violation. The officers, aware of recent robberies in the area, grew suspicious and called a victim to the scene. The victim identified Cairel and Johnson as the men who had robbed him the night before. The officers arrested them. During subsequent questioning, Cairel, who has a learning disability and low IQ, confessed to several robberies and implicated Johnson. Prosecutors filed charges. Johnson pled guilty in exchange for probation. Further investigation revealed that both men were innocent. A year later, prosecutors dismissed Cairel’s case and allowed Johnson to withdraw his plea. Neither man was imprisoned. They sued the detectives under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for allegedly fabricating Johnson’s confession, failing to disclose a potential alibi witness, and coercing Cairel’s confession. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs were not deprived of sufficient liberty to support their fabrication claim. There was no evidence that defendants concealed evidence unknown to plaintiffs supporting their alibi or that any failure to disclose caused a deprivation of liberty. No reasonable jury could find that Cairel’s interrogation “shocked the conscience” or that defendants’ conduct was so “extreme and outrageous” as to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress.Probable cause for the criminal charges defeated claims for malicious prosecution. View "Cairel v. Alderden" on Justia Law