Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against Morton County and North Dakota state officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a violation of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights related to an incident where law enforcement officials shot plaintiff with lead-filled bean bags while he was protesting.The Eighth Circuit concluded that, although plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims are not Heck barred, they are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the merits. In this case, the nonconclusory allegations in the complaint do not give rise to a plausible inference that the officers who allegedly shot and arrested plaintiff acted out of retaliatory animus. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the excessive force claims against the officers who shot plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment, as the complaint asserted use of more than de minimus force when plaintiff did not threaten anyone, flee, or resist arrest and the law was clearly established. The court stated that, if the allegations in his complaint are true, then Morton County law enforcement engaged in a persistent pattern of excessive force against peaceful protestors that was tacitly authorized by Sheriff Kirchmeier and that led to plaintiff's injury. Furthermore, Sergeant Kennelly is liable for the violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights because he failed to intervene. Finally, plaintiff's equal protection claims were properly dismissed where he failed to allege facts showing that otherwise similarly situated non-Native Americans were treated more favorably than he was. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Mitchell v. Kirchmeier" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the landlords' motion for a preliminary injunction in an action challenging the Minneapolis City Council's enactment of Ordinance No. 244.2030 under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause (and similar provisions of the Minnesota Constitution). The Ordinance requires landlords to evaluate applicants for rental housing by either (1) "inclusive screening criteria" or (2) "individualized assessment."The court concluded that the landlords have neither demonstrated a physical-invasion taking nor a Penn Central taking. The court stated that, due to the individualized assessment option, the Ordinance is a restriction on the landlords' ability to use their property, not a physical-invasion taking. Furthermore, the district court properly ruled that the landlords offered nothing but conclusory assertions of economic impact and interference with investment-backed expectations. Finally, the Ordinance withstands rational basis review where it does not infringe a fundamental right and where the government had a legitimate purpose in ameliorating problems that often prevent people from finding housing. View "301, 712, 2103 and 3151 LLC v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to a police officer in an action brought by Marquis Jones's estate, alleging claims under state and federal law after a police officer shot and killed Jones while he was running away from a traffic stop. In this case, the court agreed with the district court that there are two genuine disputes of material fact for the jury: first, whether the officer saw Jones drop the gun when he ordered him to; and second, whether the officer was unreasonable in believing Jones was taking a firing position rather than surrendering. The court stated that, if, construing the evidence most favorably to the estate, the officer knew Jones was unarmed, then shooting him violated a clearly established constitutional right. View "Williams v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging petitioner's conviction for distributing heroin resulting in death of another person. The court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's section 2241 petition because he failed to establish that section 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. In this case, petitioner's impediment to relief was existing caselaw, not the remedy provided by section 2255. Furthermore, because the saving clause enacted by Congress only provides relief when section 2255's remedy itself is inadequate or ineffective, the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's section 2241 petition. Without jurisdiction over the section 2241 petition, the district court could not entertain the petition and therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing. View "Crayton v. United States" on Justia Law

During an investigation of a peer-to-peer computer file-sharing network being used to acquire child pornography, officers learned from Sandell's neighbor that Sandell had asked to use their Wi-Fi to access the internet to register his sex offender status. Officers knocked on Sandell’s door, identified themselves, conducted a sweep of the home, then asked Sandell where he would like to talk. Sandell invited them inside. The officers explained they were attempting to obtain a search warrant for Sandell’s home but that Sandell was not under arrest, was not obligated to talk to them, and was free to leave. Officers supervised Sandell while he moved around the house. Sandell admitted to downloading child pornography. He voluntarily turned over a camera and thumb drives, stating that he was likely facing 15 years' imprisonment. The officers ultimately obtained a warrant and collected Sandell’s laptop, thumb drives, and DVDs.Sandell was later charged with distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. Sandell unsuccessfully moved to suppress statements made at his home. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Sandell was not in custody; the officers did not need to advise Sandell of his Miranda rights. Officers informed Sandell repeatedly he was not under arrest and was not obligated to speak to them. Sandell retained his freedom of movement and voluntarily answered questions. Officers did not use strong-arm or deceptive tactics. Sandell was not immediately arrested. View "United States v. Sandell" on Justia Law

Officer Deaver learned Hansen's girlfriend had purchased a shotgun, listing her address as the home she shared with Hansen. Knowing Hansen had a prior felony conviction, Deaver rode to the property, on a pickup day, in a garbage truck operated by J&J Sanitation. Deaver retrieved a trash container outside the garage and emptied the contents. Officers sorted the trash and found gun catalogs, a plastic baggie containing marijuana, and a transaction history documenting Hansen’s purchases of gun parts. A Nebraska state judge issued a warrant authorizing a search of Hansen’s residence, where law officers seized firearms and ammunition.Charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, Hansen unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence and sought a “Franks” hearing, alleging that Deaver omitted material information from the warrant affidavit when he failed to mention that his trash container was located on private property. Hansen asserted he had an agreement with J&J not to pick up his trash unless he moved the container “to a public property location” 200 feet from his garage. Hansen claimed he told J&J not to use the “driveway” leading to his house. The district court sentenced Hansen to 36 months' imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that it was not clear whether the trash was beside a private driveway or a public street and that Deaver had no way of knowing about any agreement Hansen might have had with J&J. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of First Care in an action brought by plaintiffs, alleging that First Care unlawfully terminated them from their positions at an assisted-living facility. First Care claimed that plaintiffs were terminated because, as mandatory reporters, they had failed to immediately report observed abuse.The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege a claim of retaliation under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1114(1)(c) where they have failed to identify any demand by First Care to engage in an unlawful action. The court also concluded that plaintiffs' race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981, Title VII, and Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1104(1) failed because plaintiffs ultimately failed to identify a similarly situated comparator. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue for trial regarding the district court's exclusion of investigator notes and reports on hearsay grounds. View "Walker v. First Care Management Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Missouri Division of Family Services (DFS) hotline received a call reporting drug activity, verbal abuse of children, and weapons at the house where Alloway lived with her boyfriend and his children. A DFS social worker went to the house for a welfare check, accompanied by sheriff’s deputies. Alloway met them outside. They stated the reason for their visit. Alloway invited them into the house and told them to wait in the kitchen while she went upstairs to get the older child. While the social worker interviewed the child, a deputy saw three loaded rifles. Where those rifles were was disputed. After confirming that Alloway was a felon, he arrested her. Alloway’s boyfriend stated that he was also a felon and that there was another gun in the bedroom safe. He refused to open the safe and was also arrested. While the deputies were on the phone getting a search warrant for the safe, they spotted more guns in plain sight in the bedroom. They obtained and executed two search warrants, finding 13 guns, 125 grams of meth, and other drug evidence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress. Alloway consented to the search, and the deputies did not exceed the scope of that consent. View "United States v. Alloway" on Justia Law

Tyler owned a Minneapolis condominium. She stopped paying her property taxes and accumulated a tax debt of $15,000. To satisfy the debt, Hennepin County foreclosed on Tyler’s property and sold it for $40,000. The county retained the net proceeds from the sale. Tyler sued the county, alleging that its retention of the surplus equity—the value of the condominium in excess of her $15,000 tax debt—constituted an unconstitutional taking, an unconstitutionally excessive fine, a violation of substantive due process, and unjust enrichment under state law.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her complaint. Minnesota’s statutory tax-forfeiture plan allocates the entire surplus to various entities with no distribution of net proceeds to the former landowner; the statute abrogates any common-law rule that gave a former landowner a property right to surplus equity. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from retaining the surplus where the record shows adequate steps were taken to notify the owners of the charges due and the foreclosure proceedings. View "Tyler v. Minnesota" on Justia Law

The plaintiff alleged that during the September 17, 2017 protests of the acquittal of a St. Louis police officer on murder charges, police officers violated his civil rights when they boxed or "kettled" him in with other protestors and then pepper-sprayed him, arrested him, and restrained him with zip ties. In the plaintiff’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to indicate his seizure was unreasonable. With respect to the excessive force claims, based on the record and plaintiff's allegations, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the force used against the plaintiff was objectively reasonable. The plaintiff's claim of excessive force against the supervising police officers was sufficient at this stage of the case to defeat the officers' claims of qualified immunity. "There are simply too many unknowns and factual disputes" to determine as a matter of law that the subordinate police officers reasonably relied on their superiors' orders to arrest the crowd at the downtown intersection. View "Baude v. Leyshock" on Justia Law