Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Following the execution of a search warrant, Florentino Villanueva, Jr., was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied his motion to suppress the firearm seized during the search. Villanueva entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and any sentencing enhancement the district court might impose under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The district court overruled Villanueva’s objections at sentencing, classified him as an armed career criminal, and sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment. On appeal, Villanueva challenged the validity of the warrant on multiple theories. He argued: (1) that the warrant was not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; (2) that the documents relied on for the search warrant failed to establish probable cause because there was no showing of a nexus between the items sought and the residence searched and the information relied on to establish probable cause was stale; and (3) that the warrant authorized a general search. Finding no problem with the warrant or error in the proceedings regarding Villanueva's conviction or sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Villanueva" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Archie Rachel was a state prisoner who was given 21 days to seek discovery, obtain and review responses that were not even due within the 21-day period, and respond to the defendants’ motion for dismissal or summary judgment. At all times pertinent to this case, Rachel had access to a prison law library for only a few hours per week. Given these circumstances, Rachel asked for additional time to respond to the defendants’ dispositive motion. The district court did not rule on the request for additional time; Rachel had no choice but to respond without the benefit of the requested discovery. The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was reduced to whether the district court should have found good cause for an extension of time for Rachel's responsive pleading. The Court concluded the court should have granted an extension of time. View "Rachel v. Troutt" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Kansas Board of Education (the “Board”) adopted curriculum standards establishing performance expectations for science instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Appellants, Citizens for Objective Public Education, Kansas parents, and school children (collectively, “COPE”), contended that although the standards purported to further science education, their concealed aim was to teach students to answer questions about the cause and nature of life with only nonreligious explanations. COPE also claimed two plaintiffs had standing as taxpayers who objected to their tax dollars being used to implement the Standards. The district court disagreed, and dismissed the suit without prejudice for lack of standing. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded all of COPE's theories of injury failed, and affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "COPE v. KS State Board of Education" on Justia Law

"This appeal is heavy, very heavy, on procedure." Plaintiff-appellee Peggy Walton worked in the New Mexico State Land Office. She was a political appointee of the elected Republican Land Commissioner, Patrick Lyons. Lyons’s decision not to seek reelection for a third term put plaintiff's job at risk: as a political appointee, a new administration could easily dismiss her. To see that she remained employed with the state, Lyons appointed plaintiff to a senior civil service job where she’d be protected by state law against removal for political reasons. A local television reporter ran a report titled “[c]ronies move up as officials move out” - a report highly critical of Lyons and plaintiff. Another reporter introducing the story aired his view that plaintiff was “distinctly unqualified” for her new job and claimed the hiring was “rigged.” Ray Powell, the newly elected Democratic candidate, dismissed plaintiff. Eight days after making the decision to dismiss her but before announcing it publicly, Powell held a meeting with the land office’s advisory board; "glared across the conference table" at plaintiff, spoke of the television news report denouncing her appointment; and, referring to her in all but name, said he “was concerned about . . . ‘protected employees’” who “for some reason didn’t have to meet the leadership criteria” for their appointments. Plaintiff sued when she was dismissed, arguing that she was a protected civil service employee, and under New Mexico Law, Powell had unlawfully retaliated against her for exercising her right to free political association in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983. In reply and at summary judgment. Powell claimed qualified immunity. But the district court denied the motion and set the case for trial. Powell appealed, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of summary judgment. View "Walton v. NM State Land Office" on Justia Law

Jamis Johnson was convicted of seven counts of mail fraud, nine counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, and ten counts of money laundering. He appealed the denial of a motion for a new trial, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and alleged several instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Kody Brown, Meri Brown, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Robyn Sullivan (“the Browns”) form a “plural family.” Kody Brown is legally married to Meri Brown and “spiritually married” to the other three women, whom he calls “sister wives.” When the family became the subject of a TLC reality television show in 2010, the Lehi Police Department opened an investigation of the Browns for violating Utah’s bigamy statute, Utah Code Annotated section 76-7-101. The Browns then filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in federal district court against the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Utah and the Utah County Attorney. Claiming the Statute infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Browns sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the Statute against them. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review of this matter that the district court erred by proceeding to the merits: "[f]ollowing adoption of the [Utah County Attorney’s Office] UCAO Policy, the Browns’ suit ceased to qualify as an Article III case or controversy. Their suit was moot before the district court awarded them relief, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to decide the Browns’ claims." View "Brown v. Buhman" on Justia Law

In 2015, two men were distributing pamphlets on the plaza outside the Courthouse (Plaza). The pamphlets contained information about "jury nullification." Both men were arrested and charged with jury tampering in violation of Colorado law. Plaintiffs, like the men who were arrested, wanted to distribute literature relating to and advocating for jury nullification to individuals approaching the Courthouse who might be prospective jurors. Fearing they too would be subject to arrest, Plaintiffs brought suit against the City and County of Denver and Robert White, Denver’s police chief, to establish their First Amendment right to engage in this activity. On the same day they filed suit, Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to restrain Defendants from taking action to prevent Plaintiffs from distributing jury nullification literature on the Plaza. This case was an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, enjoining in part the enforcement of an administrative order (Order) issued by Defendant-Appellant Judge Michael Martinez, acting in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District of Colorado. The Order prohibited all expressive activities within an area immediately surrounding the Courthouse. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court enjoined enforcement of a portion of the Order as against Plaintiffs. The Judicial District appealed. "[T]he government’s power to control speech in a traditional public forum is circumscribed precisely because the public has, through the extent and nature of its use of these types of government property, acquired, in effect, a 'speech easement' that the government property owner must now honor." Based on the arguments made and evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, the Tenth Circuit held the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ motion in part. View "Verlo v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In 1998, Cameron Jones was convicted of interference with commerce by threat or violence, and of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. In 2007, he was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and sentenced to 71 months in prison and five years of supervised release. The court also ordered the prison sentence to run consecutively to the 24-month term of incarceration imposed as a result of the revocation of supervised release in the 1998 case. In 2014, Jones was released from prison and began serving his five-year term of supervised release for the 2007 conviction. Approximately one month after his release, a member of the Rolling 60s Crips gang was murdered. Two days after the murder, the United States Probation Office filed a petition to revoke Jones’s supervised release, alleging Jones violated three conditions of his probation. The petition asserted Jones violated these conditions by murder, possessing a firearm, and associating with the victim, a convicted felon. The district court revoked Jones’s supervised release. It relied on hearsay evidence from the Government’s only witness at the revocation hearing. On appeal, Jones argued: (1) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) required the district court to apply a balancing test to determine whether hearsay evidence may be considered for revocation; (2) the district court abused its discretion because it did not apply the Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing test; and (3) this error was reversible. The Tenth Circuit agreed with Jones and reversed and remanded to the district court for a new revocation hearing. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Jerry Perea died in 2011 after an incident involving Officers David Baca and Andrew Jaramillo. Merlinda Perea called 911 and told the operator that her son, Perea, was on “very bad drugs” and that she was afraid of what he might do. Baca and Jaramillo were sent to perform a welfare check. The officers were informed that they were responding to a verbal fight and that no weapons were involved. They were also informed that Perea suffered from mental illness and may have been on drugs. The officers located Perea pedaling his bicycle. The officers used their patrol cars to force Perea to pedal into a parking lot. Jaramillo left his vehicle to pursue Perea on foot. After a brief chase, Jaramillo pushed Perea off his bicycle. The officers did not tell Perea why they were following him or why he was being seized, and they never asked Perea to halt or stop. After pushing Perea off his bicycle, Jaramillo reached for Perea’s hands in an attempt to detain him. Perea struggled and thrashed while holding a crucifix. After Perea began to struggle, Baca told Jaramillo to use his taser against Perea. The district court denied Baca and Jaramillo qualified immunity against a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, and they appealed. After reviewing the district court record in this matter, the Tenth Circuit held that the officers’ repeated tasering of Perea after he was subdued constituted excessive force, and that it was clearly established at the time of the taserings that such conduct was unconstitutional. The Court affirmed the denial of the officers request for qualified immunity. View "Perea v. Baca" on Justia Law

Defendant Eric Alexander was convicted by a jury of one count of failing to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). It was undisputed that Alexander was a sex offender as defined by federal law. After being paroled, Alexander registered as a sex offender in the City of Santa Ana, California. In doing so, Alexander did not list a fixed address and instead registered as a transient. Though registering as a transient required Alexander to “re-register every [thirty] days,” it was undisputed that Alexander failed to do so. In April 2013, Alexander “violated the conditions of his parole by absconding from parole supervision, having access to a firearm, [providing] false identification to a police officer, and [having] access to ammunition or [a] firearm.” Later that year, Alexander traveled by bus to Las Cruces, New Mexico. Cynthia Williams picked up Alexander from the bus station and took him to her apartment. According to Williams, Alexander arrived in Las Cruces with only a backpack of clothing and personal items. Leticia Bullard, Williams’ sister, lived in the same apartment complex and encountered Alexander several times during the time he was staying at Williams’ apartment. On approximately September 17, 2013, Bullard learned about Alexander’s status as a sex offender. She then contacted a law enforcement officer. That in turn led to officers from the United States Marshals Service arresting Alexander at Williams’ apartment complex on September 23, 2013, for parole violations. On January 3, 2014, a criminal complaint was filed against Alexander in federal district court in New Mexico charging him with one count of failing to register under SORNA. Alexander appealed his SORNA conviction, arguing court error in instructing the jury. The Tenth Circuit agreed that there was an erroneous and prejudicial jury instruction given at Alexander's trial. The conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Alexander" on Justia Law