Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

This issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether, under the totality of circumstances, two Kansas Highway Patrol Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain and search the vehicle of Peter Vasquez. In particular, this case presented the question of what weight to afford the state citizenship of a motorist in determining the validity of a search. Vasquez argued that after stopping him for a traffic violation, the Officers detained him and searched his car without reasonable suspicion. As justification, the Officers claimed, among other things, Vasquez was a citizen of Colorado, driving alone on Interstate 70 from Colorado through Kansas, in the middle of the night, in a recently purchased, older-model car. The district court concluded the Officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Vasquez’s asserted right was not clearly established. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, concluding the Officers acted without reasonable suspicion and violated clearly established precedent. In particular, the Court concluded that the Officers impermissibly relied on Vasquez’s status as a resident of Colorado to justify the search of his vehicle. The Court reversed and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Vasquez v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Former FBI agent Robert Lustyik wanted to help his friend and business partner, Michael Taylor, in return for payment. Taylor owned American International Security Corporation (AISC), a company that offered security and defense contracting services. The Department of Defense awarded AISC a contract in 2007 to provide training and related services to Afghan Special Forces. In mid-2010, the United States began investigating AISC regarding fraud and money laundering in connection with the 2007 contract. In September 2011, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action against assets owned by Taylor and AISC, which resulted in the seizure of more than $5 million dollars from AISC’s bank account. Lustyik used his status as an FBI agent to impair the government’s investigation of Taylor, including attempting to establish Taylor as a confidential source. Lustyik was indicted on charges related to the obstruction of justice. Prior to trial, Lustyik pleaded guilty to all charges in the indictment without a plea agreement. After his plea, his lead counsel withdrew and Lustyik obtained new counsel. On the eve of sentencing, counsel sought an order allowing him to obtain security clearance to review classified material he believed might be relevant for sentencing. The district court, having previously reviewed the documents, deemed them irrelevant to the sentencing issues, denied the motion, and subsequently sentenced Lustyik to 120 months’ imprisonment. Lustyik argued on appeal that the district court’s order denying his counsel access to the classified materials violated his Sixth Amendment rights at sentencing. Finding that the district court’s decision was not presumptively prejudicial to Lustyik’s advocacy at sentencing, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding the documents were not relevant for sentencing, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Lustyik" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Ernest Marquez challenges the two-level sentence enhancement imposed under United States Sentencing Guideline section 3B1.1(c) for his role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in criminal activity. A jury convicted Marquez of three drug charges, including, as relevant to this appeal, possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The testimony and evidence at trial showed that Marquez obtained the "meth" in question by arranging for two women, Veronica Hernandez and Belinda Galvan, to drive from Las Cruces, New Mexico, to the vicinity of Tucson, Arizona, exchange money he had provided them for a brick of meth, and deliver the meth to him back in Las Cruces. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's sentencing decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Marquez" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the sentencing and resentencing of defendant-appellee Gregory Womack, who was convicted of federal crimes involving the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the initial sentence based on the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the crimes. But after issuance of that decision, the U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted two guideline amendments: Amendment 782 and Amendment 750. Amendment 782 lowered the base offense levels for certain drug weights. But Amendment 750 had the opposite effect for crimes involving methamphetamine, promulgating a revised drug-equivalency table in which each gram of methamphetamine had a higher marijuana-equivalent weight than when defendant had committed his crimes. Defendant successfully moved for a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), arguing that the only relevant amendment was Amendment 782. After its review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that Amendment 750 was relevant and precluded defendant from obtaining a reduction in his sentence. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss defendant's motion based on a lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Womack" on Justia Law

Defendant Shannon Armstrong was standing alongside his patrol car conversing with Dusti Mowrey, a local resident and, by happenstance, a friend of Plaintiff Thomas Culver, when he witnessed a Chevrolet pickup with two individuals inside approach the Maverick Country Store without headlights and then disappear behind the store. The dash camera on Defendant’s patrol car revealed that shortly after 2:26 a.m., the white Chevrolet pickup deactivated its headlights before moving left off the public thoroughfare and over the sidewalk adjacent to a delivery area at the back of the store. The dash camera indicated Defendant activated his flashing lights at 2:27:06 a.m. and proceeded south on 6th Street in pursuit of the pickup. The pickup was approximately three blocks ahead of the patrol car when it turned right or south on North 3rd Street. The morning ended with Plaintiff being arrested for public intoxication. The charges would ultimately be dropped, but Plaintiff sued Defendant for unlawful arrest based on the exchange between him, his passenger and Defendant the night of his arrest. On Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the district court held probable cause supported Plaintiff’s arrest and granted Defendant qualified immunity. Plaintiff appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected Plaintiff’s claim and affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Defendant. View "Culver v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Miguel Bustamante-Conchas was convicted on drug distribution charges and sentenced to 240 months in prison. At sentencing the district court found that Bustamante-Conchas was responsible for a significant amount of drugs and for a firearm in the possession of a co-conspirator, and then after a lengthy hearing sentenced him before he could speak on his behalf to the court. He appealed, challenging the district court’s factual findings at sentencing, as well as the court’s failure to allow him to allocute before sentencing. The Tenth Circuit concluded the factual findings were supported by the record and justified the eventual below-guideline sentence imposed by the trial court. Although the court should have allowed Bustamante-Conchas to allocute, any error was not plain. The Court therefore affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Bustamante-Conchas" on Justia Law

Walter Ackerman's internet service provider (ISP) had an automated filter designed to thwart transmission of child pornography. The filter identified one of four images attached to an email sent by Ackerman as pornography, immediately shut down his account, and forwarded a report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). NCMEC then alerted law enforcement. Ackerman would ultimately be investigated and indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of possession and distribution of child pornography. Ackerman entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of NCMEC's investigation. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ackerman argued that NCMEC's actions amounted to an unreasonable search of his email and attachments because no one sought a warrant or invoked any lawful basis for failing to obtain one. "But the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches undertaken by the government or its agents — not private parties. So Mr. Ackerman’s motion raises the question: does NCMEC qualify as a governmental entity or agent?" Even if it did, it raised another question pertaining to a “private search:” the government doesn’t conduct a Fourth Amendment “search” when it merely repeats an investigation already conducted by a private party like AOL. So the ancillary issue raised was whether NCMEC simply repeated AOL's investigation, or did exceed the scope of AOL’s investigation. The district court denied Ackerman’s motion to suppress both because NCMEC was not a governmental actor and, alternatively and in any event, because NCMEC’s search didn’t exceed the scope of AOL’s private search. The Tenth Circuit disagreed with that conclusion, finding that NCMEC was indeed a governmental entity or agent and searched Ackerman's email without a warrant. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ackerman" on Justia Law

In 2012, James Black was convicted by jury of conspiring to distributing cocaine, using a telephone in committing or in causing the facility, and possessing with intent to distribute. The convictions stemmed from charges made in the government’s Fifth Superseding Indictment in a longstanding, multi-defendant case that began in November 2007. Between the First Superseding Indictment (in which Black was first charged) and the jury trial, the government filed another four superseding indictments and twice dismissed the case: once to pursue an interlocutory appeal and once to avoid dismissal of the cocaine-conspiracy charge. After the jury’s verdict, the district court sentenced Black to 30 years’ imprisonment. Black appealed, arguing that the district court plainly erred in calculating the United States Sentencing Guidelines advisory range at 360 months’ imprisonment to life. Black also argued that the government’s 23-month delay in bringing him to trial, together with the delay between the filing of the second-to-last indictment and Black’s trial, denied him his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the government didn’t violate Black’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. But because the Court concluded that the district court plainly erred in calculating Black’s advisory Guidelines range, Black’s sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

Zia Shadows, LLC operated a mobile-home park in Las Cruces, New Mexico, under a special-use permit from the City. In late 2000, a dispute over water-rights fees arose between Zia Shadows and the City, and principal Alex Garth protested these fees and lodged written and oral complaints with the City Council. This appeal arose out of that zoning dispute. Zia Shadows and its principals, Alex and William Garth (collectively, Zia Shadows), filed suit in federal district court, alleging the City’s delays in approval of a zoning request (and the conditions ultimately attached to the approval) violated Zia Shadows’ rights to due process and equal protection. Zia Shadows also alleged the City’s actions were taken in retaliation for Zia Shadows’ public criticisms of the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on Zia Shadows’ due-process and equal-protection claims, and a jury found in favor of the City on Zia Shadows’ First Amendment retaliation claim. Zia Shadows argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit: (1) that the district court erred in granting summary judgment; (2) the district court abused its discretion both in its instruction of the jury and its refusal to strike a juror; and (3) the jury’s verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding Zia Shadows failed to establish the requisite elements of its due-process and equal-protection claims and did not demonstrate reversible error in either the proceedings or verdict at trial. View "Zia Shadows, LLC v. City of Las Cruces" on Justia Law

Matthew Hale was convicted of obstruction of justice and soliciting the murder of a federal judge. After filing an unsuccessful motion for collateral relief, he filed a habeas corpus application, arguing: (1) because the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish guilt under the solicitation and obstruction statutes, he was “actually innocent;" and (2) he claimed that possible juror misconduct, which he learned about after his section 2255 motion had been denied, may have deprived him of his right to an impartial jury. The district court denied the "section 2241" application under 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) for lack of statutory jurisdiction, and Hale appealed. Finding that Hale’s application was barred under the Tenth Circuit's interpretation of section 2255(e) in "Prost v. Anderson," (636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011)), the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Hale v. Fox" on Justia Law