Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

Abraham Hagos was incarcerated in Colorado State prison for multiple convictions. In the first case, he was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and two counts of retaliation against a witness. In the second, he was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree burglary, felony menacing, and conspiracy. He was serving two consecutive life sentences, one from each case. In a separate pending state court proceeding, Hagos challenged his murder and related convictions from his first case. He sought federal habeas review of his kidnapping and related convictions from his second case. The federal court dismissed his application for lack of a case or controversy and granted Hagos a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal this ruling, which he then took to the Tenth Circuit. Finding that his petition indeed presented a case or controversy, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded Hagos' case for consideration of his habeas claims. View "Hagos v. Raemisch" on Justia Law

Defendant Paul D. Edwards entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of child pornography, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress thousands of images and videos of child pornography recovered at his home pursuant to a search warrant. The district court sentenced Edwards to sixty-three months in prison followed by seven years of supervised release. Edwards appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, claiming the affidavit underlying the search warrant lacked sufficient indicia of probable cause, and no reasonable officer could have in good faith relied on the search warrant as issued. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause that child pornography would be found at Edwards’s home, but affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Inmate Aleshia Henderson was handcuffed and in leg restraints in a holding cell in the medical unit of the David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center in Tulsa. Detention Officers Dalean Johnson and Michael Thomas were on duty at the medical unit, but they left to assist with a medical emergency elsewhere. In their absence, Inmate Jessie Johnson entered Henderson’s unlocked holding cell and allegedly raped her. Henderson sued the officers in their individual capacities and Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz in his individual and official capacities2 (collectively, “Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. 1983. She alleged an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference to the risk of assault. Defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion because Henderson raised genuine issues of material fact regarding Defendants’ awareness of the risk of assault. Defendants petitioned the Tenth Circuit for interlocutory appeal of the district court’s decision. After review, the Court dismissed the appeals of DO Johnson and Sheriff Glanz for lack of jurisdiction because they asked the Court to resolve issues of fact and did not turn on discrete questions of law. The Court concluded DO Thomas was entitled to qualified immunity because Henderson could not show he violated a clearly established constitutional right. View "Henderson v. Glanz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Phillip Mocek was arrested for concealing his identity after filming airport security procedures and being questioned on suspicion of disorderly conduct. He then sued agents of the Transportation Security Administration, officers of the Albuquerque Aviation Police Department, and the City of Albuquerque for alleged constitutional violations. He asserted that he was arrested without probable cause and in retaliation for protected speech. He further contended that the officers and City abused process under New Mexico law. The district court dismissed each of his claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, it was not clearly established that a plaintiff could maintain a retaliatory arrest claim for an arrest arguably supported by probable cause. Mocek also failed to state claims for malicious abuse of process or municipal liability. View "Mocek v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law