Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In the early morning of June 28, 2014, Ms. Taylor Hawkridge was shot and killed in the parking lot of her apartment complex. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a man in a hooded sweatshirt fleeing the scene and entering a dark Dodge Charger. Ms. Hawkridge had a verbal altercation with Nasstashia Van Camp Powell at Vixens Gentlemen’s Club, where she worked. Ms. Powell, after being convicted of second-degree murder, implicated Richard Small and Joseph Mason in the murder, stating they were paid to kill Ms. Hawkridge because she was a police informant. Mr. Small was interviewed by law enforcement multiple times, including a June 2018 interview where he ambiguously mentioned needing a lawyer.The Circuit Court of Berkeley County held a joint trial for Mr. Small and Mr. Mason. Mr. Small filed motions to exclude evidence of Mr. Mason’s gang affiliation and to suppress his June 2018 statement, arguing he had invoked his right to counsel. The court denied these motions, finding the gang affiliation evidence intrinsic to the crimes and Mr. Small’s statement ambiguous. The jury convicted Mr. Small of conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life without parole.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Mr. Small argued his constitutional rights were violated by his and his counsel’s absence from critical-stage hearings, the admission of prejudicial evidence, the failure to sever his trial from Mr. Mason’s, the denial of his motion to suppress, and improper comments by the State during the mercy phase. The court found no error, holding that the hearings were not critical stages for Mr. Small, the evidence was intrinsic and relevant, Mr. Small did not properly move to sever, his statement was not an unequivocal request for counsel, and the State’s comments did not constitute plain error. The court affirmed Mr. Small’s convictions and sentence. View "State v. Small" on Justia Law

Samuel Alejondro Torrez was arrested for driving while impaired and driving after license cancellation. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant to test Torrez’s blood or urine, which he refused. Torrez was charged with first-degree test refusal and driving after license cancellation. Before trial, Torrez requested the district court to instruct the jury that the State must prove the arresting officer had probable cause to believe he was driving while impaired. The district court denied this request, and the jury found Torrez guilty on both counts.The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Torrez’s conviction, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not including a probable cause element in the jury instructions. The court reasoned that the issuance of the search warrant already established probable cause.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 2(2), requires the State to prove that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the defendant was driving while impaired. The court held that the plain language of the statute does not require the State to prove probable cause for the refusal of a blood or urine test when a search warrant is involved. The court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, concluding that the district court did not err in its jury instructions. View "State v. Torrez" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of threatening a police officer via social media while on mandatory supervision. As a condition of his postrelease community supervision, the trial court prohibited him from creating or using social media accounts and from accessing social media websites. The defendant challenged this condition as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.The Superior Court of Sacramento County initially sentenced the defendant to a split sentence for various offenses, including carrying a concealed weapon and perjury. While on mandatory supervision, the defendant was convicted of making a criminal threat using his Facebook account. The trial court executed the previously imposed sentence and added a consecutive sentence for the new conviction. On appeal, the Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The trial court then imposed a revised sentence, and the defendant was released on postrelease supervision with the challenged social media condition.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the social media prohibition was not unconstitutionally vague, as it clearly defined the prohibited conduct. The court also found that the condition was not overbroad, as it was closely related to the defendant's use of social media to commit the crime. The court concluded that the prohibition was a reasonable measure to protect the state's interest in the defendant's reformation and rehabilitation. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. View "People v. Nixon" on Justia Law

Martin Misjuns, a Fire Captain and paramedic with the Lynchburg Fire Department, was terminated after posting offensive social media content targeting transgender individuals. Misjuns alleged that his termination was due to his political and religious views, which he expressed on his Facebook pages. He claimed that the City of Lynchburg and its officials conspired to violate his constitutional rights, leading to his firing.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed all of Misjuns' claims. The court found that the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were duplicative and dismissed them. The court also dismissed Misjuns' breach of contract, equal protection, conspiracy, and wrongful termination claims. The court partially dismissed his First Amendment claims but later dismissed them entirely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Misjuns' claims. The court held that Misjuns failed to establish Monell liability against the City of Lynchburg, as he did not adequately plead that a policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court also found that the City's Employment Policies & Procedures handbook did not constitute a binding contract, thus dismissing the breach of contract claim. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the conspiracy and wrongful termination claims against the individual defendants, as those claims were not asserted against the City and had been dismissed by agreement.The Fourth Circuit concluded that Misjuns did not sufficiently plead facts to state a claim for relief on any of his six claims, affirming the district court's decision. View "Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg" on Justia Law

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and its subentities sought an exemption from Wisconsin's unemployment compensation taxes, claiming they were controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior and operated primarily for religious purposes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, ruling that the organizations did not engage in proselytization or limit their services to Catholics, and thus were not operated primarily for religious purposes.The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development initially denied the exemption request, but an Administrative Law Judge reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission then reinstated the denial. The state trial court overruled the commission, granting the exemption, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the organizations' activities were secular and not primarily religious, and that the statute did not violate the First Amendment.The United States Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's application of the statute violated the First Amendment. The Court found that the statute imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines, subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The Court concluded that the statute, as applied, could not survive strict scrutiny because the State failed to show that the law was narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission" on Justia Law

Booker Deon McKinney pleaded guilty to possession of ammunition as an unlawful drug user, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). He was sentenced to 120 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. McKinney later moved to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss his indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied his motion.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa initially reviewed the case. McKinney was indicted in January 2023 and pleaded guilty in June 2023. In January 2024, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea and dismiss the indictment, which the district court denied. McKinney was sentenced on January 26, 2024, and subsequently appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. McKinney argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss the indictment, miscalculated his base offense level, relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence, and improperly weighed the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. The Eighth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decisions. The court held that there was no intervening change in the law that justified McKinney's belated request to withdraw his plea. The court also upheld the district court's calculation of the base offense level and its reliance on hearsay evidence, finding it sufficiently reliable. Finally, the court found McKinney's sentence substantively reasonable, noting that the district court had appropriately considered the § 3553(a) factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. McKinney" on Justia Law

Clayton Stewart was involved in a police incident where Officer Victor Garcia of the Jonesboro, Arkansas police department tased him while he was climbing a fence. Stewart fell and was paralyzed as a result. Stewart filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Garcia, Jonesboro Chief of Police Rick Elliot, and the City of Jonesboro, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, and Stewart appealed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine disputes of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. Stewart argued that Garcia lacked probable cause to arrest him, used excessive force, and was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He also claimed that Elliot was liable as Garcia’s supervisor and that the police department’s policies were unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Garcia had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Stewart for misdemeanor assault and fleeing. Regarding the excessive force claim, the court found that while tasing Stewart in an elevated position could be considered deadly force, Stewart’s right to be free from such force was not clearly established at the time of the incident, entitling Garcia to qualified immunity. On the deliberate indifference claim, the court concluded that although a reasonable jury could find Garcia was aware of Stewart’s serious medical needs, Stewart failed to show that the right was clearly established, granting Garcia qualified immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the supervisory liability claim against Elliot and the municipal liability claim against the City of Jonesboro, finding no evidence of a pattern of unconstitutional acts or inadequate policies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Stewart v. Garcia" on Justia Law

In October 2016, BAS, LLC purchased commercial property in Paragould, Arkansas, listing its mailing address as 3735 Winford Drive, Tarzana, California. BAS failed to pay property taxes for 2017 and 2018, leading the Greene County Clerk to certify the property to the Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment. The Commissioner sent a notice of the upcoming tax sale to the Tarzana address via certified mail in August 2021, but did not receive a physical return receipt. USPS tracking data indicated the notice was delivered. In June 2022, the Commissioner sent another notice to the Paragould property, which was returned undelivered. The property was sold in August 2022, and BAS filed a lawsuit contesting the sale, alleging due process violations and unlawful taking.The Greene County Circuit Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Commissioner violated BAS’s due process rights, thus preventing a determination on sovereign immunity. The Commissioner appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and concluded that the Commissioner’s efforts to notify BAS were constitutionally sufficient. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and determined that the Commissioner’s actions met due process requirements. The court held that BAS failed to allege an illegal or unconstitutional act to overcome sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. View "Land v. BAS, LLC" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a complaint against the Governor of Arkansas, the Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Corrections, and the Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Acts 185 and 659 of 2023. The Board argued that these acts unlawfully transferred its power to manage the Department of Corrections to the Governor and the Secretary, in violation of amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution. The Board sought a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction to prevent the enforcement of the challenged legislation.The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction, finding that the Board demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also denied motions to dismiss the Board’s complaint and to disqualify the Board’s special counsel. The appellants, including the Governor and the Secretary, appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing that the Board failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and denied the appellants' motion to remand with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss as moot. The court found that the dispute was not moot despite the firing of Secretary Profiri, as the Board's complaint concerned the constitutionality of the legislation, not the individual holding the Secretary position. The court also dismissed the appellants' motion to disqualify the Board’s counsel, as it was outside the scope of interlocutory review.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated irreparable harm in the absence of the preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that the dispute over the Board’s authority would continue until the constitutionality of the challenged legislation was resolved. View "Sanders v. Arkansas Board of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves the admissibility of location data obtained from a GPS device imposed on the defendant as a condition of pretrial release. The defendant was involved in a domestic violence incident on December 26, 2019, where he threatened his ex-wife, C.P., and discharged a firearm. He was later apprehended in July 2020 and released on bail with conditions, including GPS monitoring. In August 2020, following a shooting incident, police retrieved the defendant's GPS data to determine his proximity to the crime scene.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the GPS evidence, and he entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.The Supreme Judicial Court addressed two main issues: whether the initial imposition of GPS monitoring was an unreasonable search under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and whether the subsequent retrieval and review of the defendant's GPS data constituted an unreasonable search.The court held that the initial imposition of GPS monitoring was a search but was reasonable under Article 14 due to the legitimate governmental interests in protecting the alleged victims and ensuring compliance with the conditions of pretrial release. The court found that the defendant's privacy expectations were outweighed by these interests.Regarding the retrieval and review of the GPS data, the court concluded that it did not constitute a search under Article 14. The defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the specific location data retrieved, as it was limited in scope and duration, and the defendant was aware that his movements could be monitored for compliance with pretrial conditions.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's order denying the motion to suppress. View "Commonwealth v. Govan" on Justia Law