Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Defendant of 15 child pornography-related offenses. On appeal, Defendant argued his possession and receipt of child pornography convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and he contends his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Defendant raised an additional argument in a pro se supplemental brief, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions.   The Eighth Circuit held that Apprendi requires the resentencing of Defendant for the possession of child pornography conviction. In all other respects, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that there was sufficient evidence submitted to the jury establishing the victims were minors, including (1) W.S. testified he was 11 years old; (2) K.A. testified she was 15 and she informed Defendant she was 15 years old, and (3) N.W. and A.C. informed Defendant they were 13 years old, and their birth certificates introduced at trial corroborate their ages. Also, the material depicting all victims demonstrates they were minors based on their physical characteristics. However, here the jury made no finding of a qualifying minor victim, so the statutory maximum sentence the district court can impose is 10 years. Because the district court’s sentence on the possession conviction runs afoul of Apprendi, the court vacated the sentence and remanded it for resentencing. View "United States v. Kyle Soto" on Justia Law

While on supervised release after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, Defendant reportedly assaulted his girlfriend and therefore violated the conditions of his release. At the ensuing revocation hearing, the government did not call Defendant’s girlfriend to testify but instead related her statements through a different witness. The district court revoked Defendant’s supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months. Defendant maintains that the government's introduction of this hearsay denied him his due-process right to confront adverse witnesses.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that any error the district court may have committed in allowing the government to introduce this hearsay was harmless. The court reasoned that Defendant’s admission that he participated in a physical altercation with his girlfriend, coupled with the apparent injuries that resulted and the threatening messages sent in the immediate aftermath, supports a reasonable inference that he intentionally or knowingly committed the assault. Thus, the government has offered sufficient evidence apart from the girlfriend’s statements to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant committed a grade A violation of the conditions of his supervision. View "United States v. Calvin Starr" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that Police officers in the St. Peters Police Department created a text messaging group to update each other about local Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. Although the text group was intended for official purposes, specifically for officers to share up-to-date information about local BLM protests, they also shared “unrelated” content. Plaintiff sent the group a video from an animated sitcom called “Paradise PD.” It showed a black police officer who accidentally shot himself with a media headline stating, “another innocent black man shot by a cop.” According to Plaintiff, the video was satire and a parody of the BLM protests. The next morning, the Police Chief berated Plaintiff, ordered him to resign, and told him that if he refused, Plaintiff would open an investigation and recommend to City Administrator that Plaintiff be fired. Plaintiff resigned and filed a lawsuit under Section 1983, alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. Defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court granted their motion.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court reasoned that based on the allegations in the complaint, the group text was used to send both work-related and unrelated messages, and Plaintiff’s video was such an unrelated message. The court explained that while Plaintiff has met the threshold showing required to advance his First Amendment claim, the court expressed no opinion on the merits of that claim. View "Brian Bresnahan v. City of St. Peters" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a U.S.C. Section 1983 action against the City of Florissant, Missouri. They allege the City is liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), because Florissant police officers, acting pursuant to an unlawful custom or policy, violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights at five protests in June and July 2020 when they declared an unlawful assembly and ordered the dispersal of protestors who had not committed the Missouri crimes of unlawful assembly or refusal to disperse. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s Memorandum and Order dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim on the ground that a municipality’s police power “to declare that an assembly is unlawful and to order individuals to disperse is not tethered to Missouri’s statutes codifying the criminal offenses of unlawful assembly and failure to disperse.”   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“FAC”) improperly limited Florissant’s broad civil authority to manage protests in the public interest to situations violating the criminal offenses of unlawful assembly and failure to disperse. The court reasoned that the alleged customs of declaring unlawful assemblies and ordering protesters to disperse in “the absence of an agreement of one person acting in concert with six or more other persons to imminently violate a criminal law with force or violence” do not state a claim of constitutional injury under Monell. Thus, the FAC failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation by any city employee and therefore failed to state a claim of Monell liability. View "Khalea Edwards v. City of Florissant" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and as part of his plea agreement he agreed to waive some of his rights to appeal his conviction and sentence. He nonetheless appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in applying the Sentencing Guidelines despite their harsh and disparate treatment of methamphetamine offenders, erred in treating the Guidelines as mandatory, and imposed an unreasonable sentence.   The Eighth Circuit concluded that the appeal waiver bars most of his appeal. As for the remainder, the court affirmed. The wrote that because the appeal waiver precludes appeal of the court's "abuse of discretion, or the imposition of an unreasonable sentence," the court dismissed this claim of error.   Further, even assuming that the district court erred in not sua sponte declaring the relevant methamphetamine Guidelines unconstitutional, the court concluded that any error was not plain. Defendant has cited scattered opinions from district courts across the country that take issue with the difference in treatment between those caught with pure methamphetamine and those with mixtures containing methamphetamine, but he hasn't shown that any of these courts held the relevant Guidelines unconstitutional. Those decisions instead appear to come from district courts that have taken these matters into consideration when selecting a sentence. Defendant has not pointed to any Supreme Court or circuit court authority to support his contention. View "United States v. Rene Lugo-Barcenas" on Justia Law

Defendants (D1 and D2) were each convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) after the district court denied their motions to suppress. On appeal, Defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motions to suppress. D2 also challenged the court's withholding of the juror questionnaires that were completed during voir dire.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of D2's motion to suppress, finding that officers arrested him after he fled from them, at which point they had probable cause to arrest him for fleeing with intent to avoid arrest. However, the court remanded D2's case to the district court for the limited purpose of disclosing the completed questionnaires to defendant D2. Based on the record, the court could not conclude that the district court's questioning was adequate to determine if juror bias contributed to D2's conviction. View "United States v. Ronald Finley, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendants (D1 and D2) were each convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) after the district court denied their motions to suppress. On appeal, Defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motions to suppress.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of both Defendants' motions to suppress. Pertaining to D1, the court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that a reasonable police officer would have found that D1 was fleeing with the intent to avoid arrest. The interaction occurred during the day in a public area, and police officers were wearing tactical vests emblazoned "Police" and displayed badges. The officers also made repeated commands that were consistent with their intent to arrest him. View "United States v. Ronald Finley, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff argued with a police officer during a protest in downtown St. Louis. Defendant- Lieutenant saw the confrontation and, fearing for the other officer’s safety, pepper-sprayed him. Plaintiff alleged that the force used was both excessive and retaliatory the district court granted qualified immunity. Plaintiff brought excessive force and First Amendment retaliation claims against the Lieutenant and a municipal liability claim against the City of St. Louis.   The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims at summary judgment and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over what remained. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff’s arguments are just general complaints about the Lieutenant’s “true motivations, intentions, and testimonial fabrications.” None of these arguments make any difference because “evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force.” Further, even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, causation is missing. As Plaintiff acknowledged, the Lieutenant “was not even in the area” when he criticized the Bicycle Response Team. Nor did Plaintiff “have any interaction with him” during the mere seconds between the beginning of the incident and the use of pepper spray. Accordingly, the court’s conclusion that the Lieutenant did not violate Plaintiff’s First or Fourth Amendment rights also forecloses his constitutional claims against the City of St. Louis. View "Derek Laney v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested pursuant to an absconder warrant for failing to report to his supervising parole officer. Law enforcement received a tip that Defendant was staying at a certain residence and arrested him in the vicinity of the residence. Law enforcement then executed a warrantless search of that nearby residence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search. The district court granted the motion to suppress, finding that law enforcement did not have reasonable suspicion that Defendant lived at the residence. The government appealed the order granting the motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement had probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion that Defendant resided at the place searched.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Defendant’s motion to suppress because law enforcement needed probable cause that Defendant was residing at the home in order to execute the warrantless search. The court explained that the informant’s tip had far fewer indicia of reliability to support probable cause without corroboration. True, the CI had given reliable information at least once before, but the record contains no details as to the basis of the tip about Defendant. View "United States v. Justin Thabit" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant both work for the State of Iowa. Plaintiff is a urologist at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics; Defendant is a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law. After Defendant criticized Plaintiff’s expert testimony in a case unrelated to this one, Plaintiff sued Defendant under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Defendant retaliated against him for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim on multiple grounds, including that Plaintiff failed to allege plausibly that Linder’s conduct was under color of state law.  Plaintiff argues that his complaint contains ample facts that together plausibly allege that Defendant acted under color of state law. These include that Defendant (1) identified himself as a state employee when he criticized Plaintiff in the newspaper articles, (2) relied on “the prestige of his official position with [UI] to gain credibility with his audience,” and (3) “used the instrumentalities and resources of the State of Iowa to facilitate his retaliatory conduct.”   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court agreed with the district court that Plaintiff failed to plead adequately that Defendant’s retaliatory actions were under color of state law. Contrary to Plaintiff’s insistence, our case law is clear that a state employee, merely by publicly identifying himself as such, does not act under color of state law. Further, even assuming that a public university professor acts in his official capacity or within the scope of his employment when he comments on public affairs, it would not necessarily follow that he acts under color of state law. View "James Brown v. Marc Linder" on Justia Law