Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, Tony Doolin was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release for distribution of crack cocaine. After his release, Doolin lived in Iowa and possessed a medical-marijuana card, which permitted him to obtain medical marijuana under Iowa law. However, his supervised release was revoked due to his ongoing marijuana use and his distribution of medical marijuana to his girlfriend. Doolin appealed this decision, arguing that it violated the Appropriations Clause of the United States Constitution, due to the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) of 2023. This act prohibits the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using funds to prevent states from implementing their own medical marijuana laws.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, holding that the revocation of Doolin's supervised release did not violate the Appropriations Clause or the CAA of 2023. The court noted that marijuana possession remains illegal under federal law, regardless of any state laws or limits on prosecutorial funding. Federal courts are required to impose a prohibition on a defendant’s unlawful possession or use of all controlled substances, including marijuana, as a condition of any term of supervised release. Even if section 531 of the CAA prohibits the DOJ from funding marijuana-related prosecutions or revocations, where doing so prevents a state from implementing its medical marijuana laws, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Doolin’s supervised release. Doolin engaged in unlawful conduct, even under Iowa’s medical-marijuana regime, as private distribution of marijuana is illegal under Iowa law, as is smoking marijuana, even for medical purposes. Therefore, the court found that the revocation of Doolin's supervised release was not prohibited by the CAA, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Doolin's supervised release. View "United States v. Doolin" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the defendant, Donavan Jay White Owl, appealed an order of the district court denying his motion to dismiss an indictment based on the Double Jeopardy Clause. White Owl had been indicted for felony murder and arson within Indian Country. A mistrial was declared during the initial trial after a dispute over White Owl’s access to information about a prosecution witness. White Owl argued that a new trial would violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution.The Appeals Court, however, ruled that White Owl had impliedly consented to the mistrial. The court noted that while the defendant did not expressly request a mistrial, his actions and responses during the proceedings indicated his implicit agreement. Specifically, when the district court declared its intention to declare a mistrial and asked the parties for their views, White Owl did not object but instead emphasized the need for more time to prepare for cross-examination of a prosecution witness.In light of this, the court concluded that White Owl's lack of objection amounted to implied consent to a mistrial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order denying White Owl's motion to dismiss the indictment based on the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "United States v. Donavan White Owl" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision to deny defendant Ki-Jana Kolajuan Ivey's motion to suppress evidence retrieved from his cell phone. Ivey, a convicted felon, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm following a traffic stop in which officers discovered a gun under his seat. Officers also obtained a warrant to search Ivey's phone, finding photos and videos of him with other firearms. Ivey argued that the search of his phone was not supported by probable cause and that the warrant was too general, violating the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the warrant was supported by probable cause given the circumstances of the traffic stop, Ivey's possession of the phone, and his prior social media activity displaying firearms. Additionally, the court concluded that the warrant was sufficiently particular, as it specified the phone to be searched and the information to be seized. The court noted that the presence of unrelated information on Ivey's phone did not transform the warrant into an impermissible general warrant. View "United States v. Ivey" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in a case concerning a law in Iowa that penalized anyone who, while trespassing, knowingly placed or used a camera or surveillance device on the trespassed property. The law was challenged by five animal-welfare groups who argued that it unconstitutionally punished activity protected by the First Amendment. The lower court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that the law was unconstitutional on its face because it was not narrowly tailored to achieve the state's substantial interests. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the part of the law that penalized the use of cameras while trespassing (the "Use Provision"), but not the part penalizing the placement of cameras on trespassed property (the "Place Provision"). The court also disagreed with the lower court's conclusion that the law was unconstitutional, holding that it survived intermediate scrutiny against a facial challenge and was not unconstitutionally overbroad, as it did not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a lower court's decision that an Iowa law violated the First Amendment. The law prohibited accessing an agricultural production facility under false pretenses or making a false statement or misrepresentation as part of a job application at such a facility, with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the facility. Various organizations challenged this law, arguing it was unconstitutional as it was "viewpoint-based", targeting speakers with negative views of agricultural production facilities. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa agreed and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, enjoining officials from enforcing the law. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit disagreed, finding that the law was constitutional as it restricted intentionally false speech carried out to cause a legally recognized harm. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the judgment, vacated the injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The case involves Brandon Peterson, an inmate at Washington County Jail (WCJ), who filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights by various jail officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, reviewing the case, had to decide on numerous instances of alleged excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, as well as constitutional and state law claims.The court found that on several occasions of alleged excessive force, the officers' actions were justified given Peterson's disruptive and threatening behavior. Consequently, the court granted qualified immunity to the officers involved in these incidents. In the case of the failure to intervene claims, the court decided that without an underlying constitutional violation, there can be no liability for failure to intervene, resulting in the officers being granted qualified immunity for these claims as well.On the issue of deliberate indifference to Peterson's mental health condition, the court found that the prison officials had made efforts to address his condition and had not acted with deliberate disregard for his health. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the officials involved.Regarding Peterson's claim of being subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, the court remanded the case to the district court for it to address this issue. The court also remanded the case to the district court to decide on the state law and Monell claims. As such, the Appeals Court reversed in part, dismissed in part, and vacated in part the district court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Peterson v. Heinen" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Chad Betts's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. Betts, a felon, was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition after a drug dog alerted to his vehicle during a traffic stop. He appealed the district court's decision, arguing that reasonable suspicion did not exist to extend the traffic stop.The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on a combination of factors: Betts’s quick speaking, profuse sweating, and rapid, shallow breathing; his possession of a torch-style lighter, which the officer knew was often used to heat drugs like methamphetamine; Betts’s unusual travel plans and his history of drug-related offenses. These factors, viewed as a whole, justified the officer's suspicion that Betts was in possession of illegal drugs by the time the officer left Betts seated in the patrol car and walked back to Betts’s vehicle to question the passenger. As a result, the court concluded that the extended stop was justified, and the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress the evidence obtained during this stop. View "United States v. Betts" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard an appeal from Jacob Bermel, who had pleaded guilty to two child pornography offenses following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was found on a camera he had hidden in his daughter's bathroom. Bermel argued that the warrantless seizure and subsequent search of the camera and its memory card violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the district court found that the seizure was justified by exigent circumstances and that the search was lawful due to the daughter's consent.On appeal, Bermel made three arguments: (1) minor children cannot consent to a search of their parents' property, (2) even if minors can consent, his daughter lacked such authority, and (3) the district court erred in finding that his daughter had consented to the search of the camera and memory card.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It rejected Bermel's first argument, stating that there is no legal precedent for a per se rule that minors cannot consent to a search of their parents' property. The court also found that the daughter had apparent authority to consent to the search given her joint access and control over the camera and its memory card. Finally, the court determined that the daughter had indeed consented to the search of the camera and its memory card. The court noted that lack of verbal response did not negate consent and the scope of her consent reasonably extended to the camera's memory card. View "United States v. Bermel" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Darren J. Ackerman’s motion to suppress evidence of firearms discovered in his basement. The police had entered his home on the information that Ackerman had tried to choke his girlfriend, was possibly on drugs, and might be holding their infant daughter hostage. They found him at the bottom of the basement stairs, holding his daughter, and upon arresting and handcuffing him, they performed a protective sweep of the basement, during which they found firearms in a room adjoining the area of his arrest.Ackerman argued that the search was not a valid protective sweep as the rooms searched did not adjoin the place of his arrest. The court, however, determined that the arrest occurred at the bottom of the stairs, where Ackerman first submitted to the officers' authority. The court concluded that the room where the firearms were found immediately adjoined the area at the bottom of the stairs, and thus, the protective sweep complied with the Fourth Amendment.The court followed the "protective sweep" exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows officers to conduct a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. The court used the two-prong test from the Supreme Court case Maryland v. Buie to determine the constitutionality of the protective sweep. The first prong allows officers to look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from where an attack could be launched, and the second prong allows officers to search areas where they believe a danger may be present based on articulable facts. View "United States v. Ackerman" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas's decision to sentence Jordan Cutler to 180 months in prison for distributing child pornography, a sentence that exceeded the Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. Cutler appealed, arguing that the district court made a procedural error in calculating the Guidelines range and asserting that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Cutler claimed that the district court erred in assessing one criminal history point under the Sentencing Guidelines for a set of uncounseled misdemeanors from 2010.The appellate court rejected this argument, explaining that Cutler's uncounseled misdemeanors were not voided by his lack of counsel, as the fines associated with these misdemeanors were constitutionally valid and could be used to enhance his punishment. The court clarified that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for misdemeanor defendants only applies where the defendant receives a prison sentence, not when the defendant is merely fined.In terms of the substantive reasonableness of Cutler's sentence, the appellate court again affirmed the district court's decision. The court explained that although the Guidelines captured certain aspects of Cutler's offense, they did not reflect the "heinous" nature of his crimes, including threats to kidnap, rape, torture, and kill young girls. Cutler also argued that the district court improperly considered its reputation and public perception when determining his sentence. However, the appellate court disagreed, noting that the district court was considering the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.Therefore, the appellate court found no procedural or substantive error in Cutler's sentencing and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Cutler" on Justia Law