Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Amidst the 2007–2008 financial crisis, the Office of the State Bank Commissioner of Kansas declared The Columbian Bank and Trust Company insolvent, seized the bank’s assets, and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. The FDIC then sold many of the bank’s assets. Columbian Financial Corporation, the bank’s sole shareholder, sued the state bank commission and four commission officials (Judi Stork, Deryl Schuster, Edwin Splichal, and J. Thomas Thull). Columbian Financial alleged denial of due process from the seizure of bank assets, and sought equitable remedies and damages. The district court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed, with the parties raising two issues: (1) whether the district court properly abstained under "Younger v. Harris," (401 U.S. 37 (1971)); and (2) whether Stork and Thull were entitled to qualified immunity on the claims for damages. The Tenth Circuit found that a state court proceeding was ongoing when the federal complaint was filed, and the state proceeding terminated while this appeal was pending. In light of this change of circumstances, the Court vacated the dismissal without prejudice on the equitable claims and remand for further proceedings. The Court also found that Stork and Thull enjoyed qualified immunity on the claim for damages because the alleged conduct would not have violated a clearly established constitutional right. View "Columbian Financial Corp. v. Stork" on Justia Law

Defendant Brian Fager appealed the denial of his Motion to Suppress a firearm police officers discovered on his person during a roadside frisk. A Topeka Police Department deputy stopped defendant's car for a turn signal violation near an apartment complex in a high-crime area of Topeka. The deputy noticed defendant’s eyes were watery, his speech was soft, and an unopened beer can sat in the center console of the vehicle (signs that indicated defendant may have been impaired). Furthermore, defendant's passenger continually leaned forward in a way that made the deputy think the passenger was trying to obstruct his view of defendant, an action which the deputy found suspicious. Although the deputy discovered Defendant had at least one prior DUI, he determined defendant was not then impaired. The deputy asked for and received permission to search defendant's car. Prior to the search, the deputy conducted a pat-down search of defendant, when he discovered defendant was carrying a firearm. Defendant would ultimately be indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, and he moved to suppress evidence of the firearm arguing the pat-down search was unlawful. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether the officers’ concerns for their own safety gave them the requisite reasonable suspicion to frisk Defendant. The Court held that these concerns sufficiently justified the frisk under the totality of the circumstances and affirmed. View "United States v. Fager" on Justia Law

In May 2009, a federal grand jury indicted Claud Koerber on one count each of mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. In November 2009 and September 2011, the grand jury returned two additional superseding indictments, ultimately charging Koerber with 20 counts related to his alleged Ponzi scheme. Koerber’s case remained pending for more than five years without ever reaching trial. In August 2014, on Koerber’s motion, the district court found a violation of the Speedy Trial Act (STA), exercised its discretion and dismissed Koerber’s case with prejudice. The government appealed, arguing to the Tenth Circuit that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice. Although the Tenth Circuit disagreed with most of the government’s arguments, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in two respects: (1) by including improper factors in its consideration of the seriousness-of-the-offense factor, and (2) by failing to fully consider Koerber’s own actions that may have contributed to the speedy-trial delay. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice, and remanded the case for reconsideration. View "United States v. Koerber" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant James Beierle of being a felon in possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. The sentencing court found him eligible for a sentence enhancement under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Defendant appealed, raising three contentions: (1) he was denied due process when he was not present for a conference to settle jury instructions; (2) the district court committed plain error by permitting the deputy sheriff to whom he confessed to testify that there were no indications during the interview that defendant was being untruthful; and (3) his sentence under the ACCA was unlawful. After review, the Tenth Circuit rejected defendant’s first two contentions and accepted his third. "Defendant’s absence from the instruction conference did not deprive him of due process because he had nothing to contribute to the purely legal matters that were decided at the conference. Even if the admission of the deputy’s testimony was error, Defendant failed to show prejudice in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. And Defendant’s sentence must be set aside because the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague." The Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant’s conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Beierle" on Justia Law

After federal investigative agents from the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) arrested her fiance with a quarter pound of methamphetamine, defendant-Appellant Janet Lilly was contacted by investigative agents from the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (“DCI”). She made several incriminating statements to the DCI agents about her involvement in distributing methamphetamine. The agents suggested that it would be beneficial to her to cooperate, and she ultimately agreed to serve as a confidential informant. Approximately eighteen months later, she was nevertheless indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of federal law. Believing that the investigative agents had promised her federal immunity from prosecution, defendant filed a motion seeking to prevent the United States from prosecuting her. The district court denied her motion, finding that neither the DCI nor the DEA had the authority to bind the United States to any such agreement. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, and appealed the district court’s denial of her motion. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Lilly" on Justia Law

Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. appealed a district court’s dismissal of its due-process claims against the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). After KDOT removed two Martin Marietta quarries from its preapproved lists of limestone aggregate suppliers, Martin Marietta unsuccessfully sought pre- and post-deprivation hearings from KDOT. Among its many claims in its federal lawsuit, Martin Marietta asserted a property-right claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming a property interest in keeping its two quarries on “the approved list” of aggregate suppliers, and a liberty interest in its reputation as a supplier of quality materials under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court disagreed, dismissing these claims on the pleadings. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that Martin Marietta had not plausibly alleged a protected property interest, and thus that KDOT did not violate Martin Marietta’s procedural-due-process rights by failing to provide pre- or post-deprivation hearings. Furthermore, the Court held that Martin Marietta had no cognizable liberty interest, because KDOT did not make defamatory statements about Martin Marietta and because Martin Marietta failed to allege sufficiently significant harm to its business. View "Martin Marietta Materials v. Kansas DOT" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant James Ryder, an Oklahoma state prisoner convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In a prior unpublished order, the Tenth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on three issues: (1) whether the district court erred in denying Ryder a definite stay of his habeas proceedings based on his incompetency; (2) whether Ryder was incompetent to stand trial and whether the procedures employed by Oklahoma to assess his competency violated his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether Ryder’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to fully investigate his mental health and background as they related to competence to stand trial and his mitigation case at sentencing, and whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. Finding no reversible error in the district court's denial, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Ryder v. Warrior" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellee Ricky Webster pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The Tenth Circuit denied his direct appeal as untimely. The district court subsequently granted defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition after determining that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence found during the search of defendant's residence. The basis of the motion to suppress was the misconduct of several officers from the Selective Crime Occurrence Reduction Enforcement (SCORE) unit, special officers used only to enter and secure the residence prior to its search by the narcotics officers who obtained the search warrant. Unbeknownst to the narcotics officers, the SCORE officers stole personal property from the residence during their initial securing of the premises and its occupants. When the government subsequently revived the criminal case against defendant, he filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized at his residence, which the district court granted. The Tenth Circuit consolidated the government appeals of the grant of section 2255 relief and the grant of the motion to suppress upon retrial. The Court then reversed, holding that because the search was not tainted by the SCORE officers’ theft and the items they took were not used in evidence against defendant, the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress all of the evidence properly discovered during the search by the narcotics agents. Given this conclusion, the Court did not address defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel argument because any motion to suppress would have failed. View "United States v. Webster" on Justia Law

During Daniel Tenorio’s jury trial, the district court permitted the government to cross-examine Tenorio regarding whether he took a polygraph examination after he testified his confession was coerced. Tenorio challenged that line of questioning on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, contending the district court abused its discretion in allowing examination regarding the polygraph test. He also claimed that the district court’s limiting instruction about the polygraph test to the jury was improper. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under established precedent, Tenorio opened the door to evidence regarding his polygraph examination by claiming his confession was coerced. In those circumstances, the court can allow limited examination about the facts surrounding a polygraph test to rebut claims of coercion. The Court also found the district court properly instructed the jurors to consider polygraph evidence only as explanation of the government’s interrogation and not the guilt of the defendant. View "United States v. Tenorio" on Justia Law

Tsutomu Shimomura was arrested shortly after going through the TSA checkpoint at Denver International Airport. Shimomura was carrying medication with him that a TSA agent selected for testing. Shimomura was afraid that the test would contaminate his medication. Based on this fear, he asked about the sterility and toxicity of the sampling strip. A discussion over the sterility of the testing strip ended with claims that Denver Police officer Wade Davis and TSA agent Kendra Carlson made an arrest without probable cause and conspired to fabricate grounds for the arrest. For these claims, Shimomura invoked 42 U.S.C. 1983 and "Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, (403 U.S. 388 (1971)), alleging that Davis and Carlson violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. On the Fourth Amendment claims, the district court granted two motions: (1) Officer Davis’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and (2) Agent Carlson’s motion to dismiss based on failure to state a valid claim. On the causes of action involving the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a valid claim. Shimomura appealed, but finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Shimomura v. Carlson" on Justia Law