Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A vehicle was stopped by Trooper Ryan Wilkinson in Smith County for speeding, having an expired temporary tag, and an inoperative brake light. The driver, Bridgett Tobler, did not have a valid driver’s license, and the passenger, Justin Heath Pettit, was on probation. After confirming there were no warrants for either individual, Trooper Wilkinson prolonged the stop to wait for a K-9 unit, which arrived nearly an hour later. The K-9 alerted to the presence of drugs, leading to a search that uncovered prescription medication, syringes, and a sawed-off shotgun. Pettit was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon.The trial court granted Pettit’s motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that the detention was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment. The State appealed, arguing that Pettit, as a passenger, lacked standing to challenge the search. The Twelfth Court of Appeals agreed with the State, reversing the trial court’s decision and holding that Pettit did not have standing to contest the search.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and held that Pettit had standing to challenge the search of the vehicle. The court reasoned that both drivers and passengers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being detained longer than necessary for a traffic stop. The search of the vehicle was deemed the fruit of the unreasonably prolonged detention. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further consideration of whether the prolonged detention was reasonable. View "State v. Pettit" on Justia Law

After stealing a pickup truck and a gun from a ranch in Odessa, the appellant was stranded at a convenience store in McCamey. His suspicious behavior drew the attention of Upton County sheriff’s deputies Thomas Stiles and Billy Kennedy. When the deputies began investigating, the appellant instigated a shootout, resulting in the death of Deputy Kennedy.A Nueces County jury convicted the appellant of capital murder for killing Deputy Kennedy. Based on the jury’s answers to special issues during the punishment phase, the trial court sentenced him to death. The appellant raised two points of error challenging his conviction and seven points challenging his sentence.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of murder, claiming a juror could have doubted whether he knew Kennedy was a peace officer. The court rejected this argument, stating the appellant did not preserve the issue and that no evidence supported the need for such an instruction. The appellant also claimed that the trial court’s refusal to submit the murder instruction violated his constitutional rights, but the court found no evidence to support this claim.The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his future dangerousness, arguing his injuries and inevitable incarceration mitigated this risk. The court found the evidence legally sufficient, citing the circumstances of the offense, the appellant’s history of violence, lack of remorse, and misbehavior in custody.The appellant also contested the admission of hearsay evidence and the denial of a mistrial due to the State’s failure to provide notice of extraneous misconduct evidence. The court found no abuse of discretion in these rulings. Additionally, the court deemed the prosecutor’s improper argument referencing facts outside the record as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, the appellant’s constitutional challenge to the future dangerousness special issue was not preserved for review. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and sentence. View "GREEN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

Thomas Stephens, a 20-year-old, sought to carry a handgun in public beyond the limited ways allowed under Georgia law. Georgia law permits individuals aged 18 to 21 to possess long guns and carry them in public, and to possess handguns in specific locations such as their home, car, or place of business. However, carrying a handgun in public generally requires the individual to be 21 or older unless they have received military weapons training. Stephens challenged the statute that restricts public carry of handguns to those over 21, arguing it violates the Georgia Constitution.Stephens initially filed the lawsuit along with Georgia Second Amendment, Inc., which later withdrew its appeal, leaving Stephens as the sole appellant. The trial court dismissed Stephens's complaint, upholding the statute. The court reasoned that the statute was a reasonable safety measure and did not constitute a complete prohibition on the right to bear arms, citing longstanding precedent that allows the General Assembly to regulate the manner of bearing arms.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the statutory scheme did not violate the Georgia Constitution. The court emphasized that state statutes are presumed constitutional and that Stephens failed to meet the heavy burden of proving otherwise. The court also noted that the consistent construction of the right to bear arms under Georgia law, which allows the General Assembly to regulate the manner of bearing arms, has been upheld for over a century. Stephens's argument to reconsider and overrule this precedent was not compelling, and his constitutional challenge to the statute failed. View "STEPHENS v. STATE OF GEORGIA" on Justia Law

Four businesses involved in the cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana within Massachusetts, in compliance with state laws, sued the Attorney General of the United States in 2023. They claimed that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) exceeded Congress's powers under Article I of the U.S. Constitution and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the CSA against their intrastate activities.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld the CSA's application to intrastate marijuana activities under the Commerce Clause, was controlling. The District Court also found no precedent for recognizing a fundamental right to cultivate, process, and distribute marijuana, thus rejecting the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The First Circuit held that the CSA's regulation of intrastate commercial marijuana activities was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court found that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that intrastate marijuana activities substantially affect interstate commerce. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim, holding that there is no fundamental right to cultivate, manufacture, possess, and distribute marijuana. The court emphasized that historical practices and recent state legislative trends do not establish such a fundamental right. View "Canna Provisions, Inc. v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Victor Soto-Sanchez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when a police officer testified about an informant's tip. He also challenged the application of a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice in his sentencing.The United States District Court for the District of Maine allowed the police officer's testimony, overruling Soto-Sanchez's objections on Confrontation Clause and hearsay grounds. The court provided a limiting instruction to the jury, stating that the informant's statements were not to be considered for their truth but to explain the officer's investigative steps. The jury found Soto-Sanchez guilty, and the court applied the obstruction of justice enhancement based on Soto-Sanchez's alleged attempts to influence a witness.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that Soto-Sanchez's Sixth Amendment rights were violated but deemed the error harmless due to overwhelming evidence against him, including physical evidence and witness testimony. The court also rejected Soto-Sanchez's sentencing challenge, concluding that he had waived his arguments regarding the obstruction of justice enhancement. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed Soto-Sanchez's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Soto-Sanchez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 2019 and have one son together. Plaintiff moved out of the marital home in January 2023 and initiated divorce proceedings in March 2023. In April 2023, defendant was arrested and charged with weapon offenses after threatening a process server with a handgun. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint in July 2023 under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on allegations of stalking and harassment. The court issued a TRO prohibiting defendant from contacting plaintiff, granting her temporary custody of their son, and denying defendant parenting and visitation time.During the final restraining order (FRO) hearing, plaintiff called defendant as a witness. Defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but the trial court ordered him to testify. Defendant refused to answer questions beyond stating his name, invoking the Fifth Amendment. The trial court ruled that defendant could not invoke the privilege and that an adverse inference could be drawn from his refusal to testify. Defendant appealed the decision.The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal. While defendant's motion for leave to appeal was pending, the Appellate Division published T.B. v. I.W., addressing a similar issue. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted defendant leave to appeal.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that while the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity in PDVA FRO hearings, a defendant may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to specific questions that pose reasonable risks of self-incrimination. The court ruled that no adverse inference may be drawn from the exercise of this right. The PDVA immunity provision in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a) is not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment and does not adequately protect a defendant's rights. The trial court's ruling was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "M.A. v. J.H.M." on Justia Law

A group of businesses and individuals in the vision care industry challenged Texas House Bill 1696, which regulates managed vision care plans by limiting the information these plans can provide to their enrollees. The plaintiffs argued that the bill imposed unconstitutional burdens on their rights of commercial speech, associational freedom, and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the bill's enforcement and the defendants, Texas officials, moved to dismiss the case, claiming sovereign immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claims and that the equities favored a preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed both the denial of their sovereign immunity defense and the grant of the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss as it related to Texas Insurance Commissioner Cassie Brown, finding that she had a specific duty to enforce the statute. However, the court vacated the denial of the motion to dismiss as it related to Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, determining that they did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the statute. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction against Commissioner Brown, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claim and that the balance of equities favored the injunction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as it applied to Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton and remanded the case for modification of the orders. View "Healthy Vision Association v. Abbott" on Justia Law

In 2023, James Broad and Rebecca McCrensky began operating a car-rental agency, Becky's Broncos, LLC, on Nantucket Island without the necessary local approvals. The Town of Nantucket and the Nantucket Town Select Board ordered Becky's to cease operations. Becky's sought preliminary injunctive relief in the District of Massachusetts to continue their business.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Becky's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect under the dormant Commerce Clause and concluded that Becky's had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Becky's appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Becky's did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim, as the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses. The court also found that Becky's failed to establish a likelihood of success on its antitrust claims due to a lack of a concrete theory of liability. Additionally, Becky's procedural due process argument was rejected because it did not establish a property interest in the required medallions. Lastly, the court held that the ordinance survived rational basis review under substantive due process, as it was rationally related to legitimate government interests in managing traffic and congestion on the island. View "Becky's Broncos, LLC v. Town of Nantucket" on Justia Law

Houston police officers Manual Salazar and Nestor Garcia, members of the Gang Division Crime Reduction Unit, fatally shot David Anthony Salinas on July 14, 2021, following a pursuit in a sting operation. His widow, Brittany Salinas, filed a lawsuit against Officers Salazar and Garcia and the City of Houston, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Texas Tort Claims Act, and the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full. The court found that Brittany Salinas had standing to bring her claims but concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the claims against the City of Houston were meritless. Brittany Salinas timely appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Salinas based on the identifying information on his vehicle and his refusal to stop when the officers engaged their lights. The court also found that the officers did not violate Salinas' Fourth Amendment rights, as they reasonably believed he posed an immediate threat when he continuously reached within his vehicle despite their commands to show his hands. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the officers, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Regarding the claims against the City of Houston, the court found no constitutional injury and affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Texas Tort Claims Act claims, as they were foreclosed by the ruling on qualified immunity and barred by case law. The court concluded that the City of Houston's sovereign immunity had not been waived. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims. View "Salinas v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Tyler Jay Watson was investigated by a police task force in Nampa, Idaho, for drug distribution based on information from a confidential informant. Watson, who was on parole, had his vehicle and residence searched by law enforcement and probation officers. Methamphetamine was found in his vehicle, and during a subsequent search of his residence, Watson was detained in a patrol car. After being read his Miranda rights, Watson admitted to having more drugs at his grandmother's home. Officers obtained consent to search the grandmother's garage, where they found fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cash.Watson was charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. He filed a motion to suppress his incriminating statements and the evidence found, arguing that his parole conditions compelled him to cooperate with law enforcement under threat of parole revocation, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied the motion, finding the searches constitutional and Watson's statements not involuntarily compelled. Watson conditionally pled guilty and was sentenced to 188 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Watson's statements were not involuntarily compelled because his parole conditions required cooperation only with his parole officer, not all law enforcement officers. Additionally, Watson was properly Mirandized before making the incriminating statements, and there was no indication that he was told refusal to cooperate would result in parole revocation. Thus, the court concluded that Watson was not subject to a penalty situation under these circumstances. View "USA V. WATSON" on Justia Law