Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants were convicted of committing a carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury. Under a separate count, they were convicted of using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, the carjacking. Defendants appealed certain evidentiary and jury instruction issues, and also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the discharging a firearm conviction.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, finding no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. However, the court concluded that Defendant's discharging a firearm conviction must be reduced to using a firearm. The court explained that the carjacking offense was complete at the moment of the taking, so the fact that the firearm was used after that point could not be used to support the discharging a firearm offenses. View "United States v. Ranson Long Pumpkin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of his peers for possession of child pornography. Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and admission of certain evidence. Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the warrant was not sufficiently particular and lacked the requisite nexus.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained In this case, multiple child pornography images were flagged by a search engine, those images were affiliated with four IP addresses, and those IP addresses were registered to the address that was searched. In addition, the state court was aware that Defendant had a previous conviction for possession of child pornography and lived at the address flagged for child pornography. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded there was a sufficient nexus between the evidence to be seized and the place to be searched. Further, the court agreed with the district court that Defendant’s prior conviction for possession of child pornography has probative value because of its similarity to the charged offense.   Finally, the court explained that the non-Rule 414 evidence connecting Defendant to the child pornography on his tablet was overwhelming. And the government’s case was only marginally strengthened by the excess propensity evidence. Accordingly, the court held any error in admitting evidence under Rule 414 was harmless. View "United States v. Gene Schave" on Justia Law

Police Lieutenant deployed pepper spray into Plaintiff’s face, during a protest in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff sued the police lieutenant and the City of St. Louis, alleging, federal claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for retaliatory use of force in violation of the First Amendment, as well as tort claims under Missouri law. The district court denied the lieutenant’s motion for summary judgment based on his defenses of qualified and official immunity and reserved ruling on whether the City is entitled to sovereign immunity on the state tort claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment as to the lieutenant, vacated, in part, the denial of summary judgment to the City, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court explained that the lieutenant contended that at the time he pepper-sprayed Plaintiff, it was “not clearly established that a use of force that does not violate the Fourth Amendment violates the First Amendment.” The lieutenant forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in the district court. In any event, the argument does not undermine the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s right to be free from a retaliatory use of force was clearly established at the time of the incident.  However, the court vacated the denial of summary judgment on the state tort claims and instruct the district court on remand to reach the merits of the sovereign immunity issue. View "Alison Dreith v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm but preserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant appealed and asked the court to reverse the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that in addition to crediting law enforcement’s testimony, the magistrate judge discredited witness testimony to the extent it varied from the officers’ description of events. The magistrate judge noted that the witness originally told the Sheriff there were only two people in the house when there were actually three. The magistrate judge also noted that the witness appeared to admit he lied when he “dropped his head” after the Sergeant confronted him about the discrepancy. Defendant insists the magistrate judge “infers too much.” But, again, the magistrate judge’s credibility determination after personally hearing and observing the witness’s testimony is virtually unassailable on appeal. And the Sergeants’ testimony was not inconsistent or implausible. View "United States v. Michael Mitchell" on Justia Law

After the district court denied his motion to suppress, Defendant’s conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court sentenced Defendant to 126 months imprisonment, varying upward six months from the mandatory minimum of 120 months, his advisory guidelines range. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, raising three Fourth Amendment issues emanating from a postal inspector’s warrantless seizure of an undeliverable Express Mail package sent to “Defendant Rm 512” at a hotel in Des Moines, Iowa. He also appealed his sentence, arguing it is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately justify the upward variance.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Here, the district court carefully explained why it imposed a six-month upward variance, stating that a mandatory minimum sentence would “ignore” Defendant’s “ridiculously problematic” and “offensive” behavior during his pre-sentence detention for this offense. The court did not abuse its discretion by varying upward to account for dozens of serious security and disciplinary violations. View "United States v. Manuel Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition. Defendant reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and subsequently appealed. Defendant argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he was unlawfully arrested in his home, and the attenuation doctrine does not apply to render the evidence that was seized during a subsequent search admissible against him.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that under the circumstances, it cannot say the district court committed a clear error in finding that Defendant’s consent to search was voluntary. The court expressly considered the relevant factors for assessing voluntariness before reaching its conclusion, including those weighing against a finding of voluntary consent. Further, the court wrote that weighing the appropriate factors, it concluded that Defendant’s voluntary consent to the search of his residence was sufficient to purge the taint of the officers’ initial unlawful conduct. The district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the December 14, 2019, search. View "United States v. Gary Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued various officials of the State of Arkansas, alleging that these officials (collectively, “ADHS defendants”) violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The officials moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, the ADHS Defendants argued that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits by individuals brought against a state or its agencies or departments, regardless of the relief sought.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs’ ARChoices benefits must be reassessed each year and, according to Plaintiffs’ allegations, “ADHS has no plans to switch to a different assessment tool, allocation methodology, or notice of action than those now used.” The very harm alleged remains likely to recur barring a change in the state’s operation of the program or judicial intervention. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that sovereign immunity does not bar this suit.   Further, the court concluded that beneficiaries have a clearly established right to be provided adequate notice of reduction, loss, or termination of benefits. No fundamental difference exists between this case and Jacobs: in both cases, beneficiaries suffered a loss of benefits under ARChoices. Thus, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that ADHS violated their right to notice. Finally, the court held that Plaintiffs have also alleged involvement by each ADHS defendant in creating, applying, or interpreting this policy. Thus, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged facts to survive a dismissal motion raising the defense. View "Ginger Elder v. Cindy Gillespie" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to narcotics and ammunition charges after the trail court denied his motion to suppress GPS locational data and subsequent post0-Miranda statements made to detectivews. Law enforcement, working with a confidential informant (CI), installed a GPS tracker on the CI's vehicle. Subsequently, Defendant borrowed CI's vehicle, which led to his arrest.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his location and movements in a borrowed vehicle. View "United States v. Joshua Dewilfond" on Justia Law

Defendant served a 48-month sentence for use of interstate facilities to promote prostitution and began a three-year term of supervised release in October 2020. The district court first revoked supervised release on August 31, 2021, when Defendant admitted drug use and failure to participate in required drug counseling; Defendant began a 24-month term of supervised release that day.   His probation officer petitioned the court to issue a warrant, alleging numerous violations of supervised release. At the conclusion of a revocation hearing, the court found that Defendant committed the violations, revoked supervised release, and sentenced Defendant to 10 months’ imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release. Defendant appealed the revocation sentence, arguing the court violated his due process right to confront witnesses at the revocation hearing and imposed additional special conditions of supervised release that are substantively unreasonable.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the facts recited in the warrant petition with the author present to testify, and Defendant’s testimony corroborating some of the alleged Grade C violations, including admissions he had not complied with sex offender registration requirements and had tested positive for cocaine use, were ample evidence supporting the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release. Further, the court found that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion when it imposed additional conditions addressing what the court described as Defendant’s “high-risk behavior” and “continued disregard for the conditions imposed.” View "United States v. La'Ron Clower" on Justia Law

The Anoka County Jail referred every detainee born outside the United States, including Plaintiff, to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The district court determined that this policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, and a jury awarded her $30,000 on a false-imprisonment theory.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court’s conclusion was correct: Anoka County’s policy is a classic example of national-origin discrimination. On its face, it treats people differently depending on where they were born. Those born abroad must wait anywhere from 20 minutes to 6 hours longer while deputies consult ICE. For those born in the United States, by contrast, there is no call and release is immediate. The court explained that it is also significant that Anoka County had national-origin-neutral alternatives at its disposal. The failure to consider these alternatives provides further evidence that it did not adopt a narrowly tailored policy. View "Myriam Parada v. Anoka County" on Justia Law