Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the Miami-Dade County State Attorney under 42 U.S.C. 1983, after she informed plaintiff that his recording of a meeting between him and the Chief of Police violated the Florida Security of Communications Act, Fla. Stat. 934.03, and that the violation was a felony. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial court's judgment and held that plaintiff did not violate section 934.03 and, consequently, the government's threatened prosecution had no basis in the law. In this case, at no point did the chief, or any participant in the meeting, exhibit any expectation of privacy. Nor was there advance notice or published or displayed rules that established confidentiality and certainly none that prohibited note taking or recordings. Furthermore, the meeting fell within the "uttered at a public meeting" exception of section 934.02, and the circumstances did not justify an expectation of privacy. Because the court resolved the case under state law, it need not reach the constitutional issue of whether the recording was protected by the First Amendment. View "McDonough v. Fernandez-Rundle" on Justia Law

After city officers shot plaintiff, he filed suit alleging claims, inter alia, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their second motion to dismiss and instructing them to develop and file their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) report. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order to the extent that it denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss on immunity grounds and directed plaintiff to amend his complaint again. The court explained that, after plaintiff has filed his second amended complaint, defendants may file another motion to dismiss that includes assertions of immunity from suit. View "Howe v. City of Enterprise" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate her conviction and sentence for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, car jacking in this case. The court held that Johnson v. United States does not apply to or invalidate 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) and that petitioner's attempted-carjacking conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(B). Alternatively, the court held that petitioner's attempted carjacking categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of section 924(c)(3)(A). View "Ovalles v. United States" on Justia Law