Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

In 2013, a grand jury charged Defendant Christopher Craig with three separate counts as part of a twenty-seven-count indictment containing nine other codefendants. The first count charged Defendant with conspiring to: manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana; and maintain a drug involved premises. The other two counts charged Defendant with using a communication facility to commit this conspiracy. After Defendant pleaded guilty to these charges, the district court at sentencing calculated his total offense level as 43 after applying a murder cross-reference under United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) section 2D1.1(d), a leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 3B1.1(a), and an obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 3C1.1. Combined with his category III criminal history, this corresponded to a sentence of life imprisonment for the conspiracy count and 48 months’ imprisonment for the two communications facility counts. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying these enhancements and imposing the life sentence on him. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "United States v. Craig" on Justia Law

Wilber Ernesto Castillo, a citizen of El Salvador, appeals his sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. 1326, which prohibits reentry into the United States by a previously removed alien. In 2004, Castillo was convicted in California state court for second-degree robbery, a violation of California Penal Code section 211. He was removed from the United States in 2007. In July 2009, Castillo reentered the United States without inspection. Castillo was convicted in 2011 for shoplifting and in 2014 for disorderly conduct. After his 2014 arrest, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement interviewed Castillo. Based on his admissions that he had been removed from the United States and then reentered without inspection, the government charged Castillo with a violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. Castillo argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that his sentence was miscalculated because the district court incorrectly considered the California robbery conviction to be a “crime of violence” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under section 2L1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court correctly considered Castillo’s California robbery conviction to be a crime of violence, it affirmed. View "United States v. Castillo" on Justia Law

This appeal grew out of a suit brought on behalf of an 11-year-old girl (“J.P”), who was a student in a class for children with special needs. One day, deputy sheriff J.M. Sharkey, who was working as a school resource officer, saw J.P. kick a teacher. Because the kick constituted a crime, Deputy Sharkey arrested J.P., handcuffed her, and transported her to a juvenile detention center. These actions led J.P.’s mother (identified as “J.H.”) to sue Deputy Sharkey and Bernalillo County claiming violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed the due process claims and granted summary judgment to Deputy Sharkey and the county on the claims involving the Fourth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act. J.H. appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "J.H. v. Bernalillo County" on Justia Law