Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Nakia Durham was stopped by Officer Labat for driving with a suspended license. During the stop, Officer Labat noticed the smell of alcohol and saw an open container in the car. A subsequent search revealed a concealed firearm, leading to Durham's convictions for possession of a firearm by a nonviolent felon, carrying a concealed weapon unlawfully, and drinking while driving.In the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, Durham moved to suppress the firearm evidence, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court denied the motion, finding the search justified based on the totality of the circumstances, including the odor of alcohol and the open container. Durham was convicted and sentenced to three years for the firearm possession, with additional penalties for the other charges.The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the lower court's decision, applying a "totality of the circumstances" analysis to uphold the search's constitutionality. The court found that the presence of the open container, the smell of alcohol, and Durham's behavior provided probable cause for the search. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Durham's firearm convictions, noting his proximity to the weapon and his actions during the stop.The Supreme Court of Virginia agreed with the Court of Appeals, holding that the search was justified under the totality of the circumstances and that the evidence was sufficient to support Durham's convictions. The court emphasized that probable cause does not require meeting all statutory prongs but rather a reasonable belief based on the overall situation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "Durham v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 2019, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 218 (AB 218), which allowed plaintiffs to bring childhood sexual assault claims against public entities within a three-year window, even if those claims were previously barred by statutes of limitations or claim presentation requirements. A.M.M. filed a complaint against the West Contra Costa Unified School District, alleging sexual assaults by a District employee from 1979 to 1983. The District argued that reviving such claims constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds under the California Constitution. The trial court overruled the District’s demurrer, leading the District to seek writ review.The trial court sustained the demurrer for the first three causes of action but overruled it regarding the gift clause argument. The District then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ of mandate to sustain the demurrer in its entirety. The appellate court issued an order to show cause, and both parties filed responses, including amicus curiae briefs from various entities.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that AB 218’s retroactive waiver of the claim presentation requirement did not constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds. The court reasoned that the waiver did not create new substantive liability but merely removed a procedural barrier to existing claims. The court also found that AB 218 served a valid public purpose by providing relief to victims of childhood sexual assault, aligning with the state’s interest in public welfare. Additionally, the court ruled that the District lacked standing to assert due process claims under both the federal and California Constitutions. The petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In September 2020, Michael Karmo informed a friend that he was traveling to Kenosha, Wisconsin, with firearms during a period of civil unrest. The friend reported this to local police, who then notified the FBI. The FBI, believing Karmo intended to shoot people and loot, requested real-time cell site location information (CSLI) from AT&T under exigent circumstances. Law enforcement located Karmo in a hotel parking lot, where he consented to searches of his vehicle and hotel room, revealing multiple firearms. Later, it was clarified that Karmo did not explicitly state he intended to shoot people and loot.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin reviewed the case. Karmo moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the CSLI collection, arguing that the exigent circumstances form contained false information. He also requested a Franks hearing to challenge the veracity of the form. The district court denied his motion, and Karmo subsequently pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal the suppression issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court assumed, without deciding, that the CSLI collection constituted a Fourth Amendment search. It held that law enforcement reasonably believed probable cause and exigent circumstances existed, justifying the warrantless search. The court found that even without the misrepresentation in the exigency form, the totality of circumstances supported a reasonable belief of a public safety threat. The court also determined that a Franks hearing was inapplicable because no judge had made a probable cause determination based on the form. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Karmo" on Justia Law

Travis Mitchell Hicks was convicted by a jury of attempted murder and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, among other charges, following a shooting incident at a bar. The altercation began with an argument between Hicks and the victim, who was intoxicated. Hicks claimed he shot the victim in self-defense after being threatened. The victim was shot in the arm and back, resulting in paralysis. Hicks fled but was apprehended the next day and eventually admitted to the shooting. The Riverside County District Attorney charged Hicks with multiple offenses, including attempted murder and assault, and the jury found him guilty on all counts.In the Superior Court of Riverside County, Hicks's defense objected to the prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to dismiss an African-American juror, arguing it was discriminatory under Batson v. Kentucky and People v. Wheeler. The trial court allowed the challenge, accepting the prosecutor's reasons that the juror's prior felony convictions and opinionated demeanor were race-neutral justifications. Hicks was sentenced to a combined determinate and indeterminate prison term.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in accepting the prosecutor's reasons for the peremptory challenge. The appellate court determined that the juror's prior felony convictions and alleged opinionated demeanor were not supported by the record as valid, race-neutral reasons. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "P. v. Hicks" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the constitutionality of "release time" provisions in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Phoenix and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2384. These provisions allow certain employees to be released from their regular duties, while still being paid by the City, to perform union activities. The plaintiffs, who are non-union employees, argued that these provisions violate their free-speech, free-association, and right-to-work rights, as well as the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment in favor of the City and the Union, finding that the release time provisions did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights because the City, not the employees, paid for the release time. The court also found that the provisions did not violate the Gift Clause, as they served a public purpose and were supported by adequate consideration. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the provisions did not violate the plaintiffs' rights and were supported by adequate consideration.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the release time provisions do not violate the free-speech, free-association, or right-to-work rights of the plaintiffs because the City pays for the release time. However, the Court found that the provisions violate the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The Court determined that the release time provisions do not provide adequate consideration to the City, as the benefits to the City are negligible compared to the substantial costs. Consequently, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion, reversed the Superior Court's decision, and remanded the case for the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the Gift Clause claim. View "GILMORE v. GALLEGO" on Justia Law

Four condemned inmates challenged the constitutionality of a South Carolina statute that provides three methods of execution: electrocution, lethal injection, and firing squad. They argued that the statute violates the South Carolina Constitution's prohibition against cruel, corporal, or unusual punishment.The Richland County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the inmates, declaring the statute unconstitutional. The court found that electrocution and firing squad methods violate the state constitution's prohibition on cruel, corporal, or unusual punishment. It also found the statute's provision allowing inmates to choose their method of execution unconstitutionally vague and an improper delegation of authority. The court further ruled that the retroactive application of the amended statute violated ex post facto prohibitions.The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the statute does not violate the South Carolina Constitution. It found that electrocution is not unconstitutionally cruel, corporal, or unusual, noting that the inmates did not meet their burden of proving that electrocution causes unnecessary and excessive pain. The court also held that lethal injection, as conceded by the inmates, is constitutional if properly administered. Regarding the firing squad, the court found it to be a relatively quick and painless method of execution, thus not cruel or unusual.The court also addressed the inmates' claims about the statute's vagueness and improper delegation of authority, finding that the term "available" is not unconstitutionally vague and that the statute does not unlawfully delegate authority to the Director of the Department of Corrections. The court emphasized that the statute's provision allowing inmates to choose their method of execution is a constitutional innovation aimed at making the death penalty less inhumane. The court concluded that the statute is constitutional in its entirety. View "Owens v. Stirling" on Justia Law

The case involves Waymon Jaeshell Stepherson, who was convicted by a Brazoria County jury. The former District Clerk, Rhonda Barchak, used a race-based system to create jury panels by sorting prospective jurors by race and residence. Stepherson, who is black, claims this process violated his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and an impartial jury, as well as the statutory requirement for a randomly selected jury panel.Stepherson was convicted of aggravated robbery in 2016. He did not object to the jury composition at trial. On appeal, he raised issues unrelated to jury selection, and the court of appeals upheld his conviction. After his conviction was affirmed, Stepherson filed a habeas corpus application, alleging newly discovered evidence of a race-based jury selection process. The habeas court found that while race was a factor in creating the jury panels, there was no evidence of systematic exclusion or underrepresentation of any racial group. The court concluded that Stepherson's jury panels represented a fair cross section of the community and recommended denying relief.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and held that to prove a due process violation based on racial discrimination in jury selection, a defendant must show systematic exclusion of a particular group and that this exclusion rendered the jury plainly illegal. The court found that Barchak's process was designed to include, rather than exclude, racial groups proportionally. Therefore, Stepherson did not meet the criteria for a due process violation. The court also found no violation of equal protection or the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, as there was no evidence of systematic exclusion or underrepresentation of non-whites. The court denied Stepherson's application for habeas corpus relief. View "EX PARTE STEPHERSON" on Justia Law

Investigators from the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force conducted an undercover operation and found child pornography on the appellant's cell phone. The appellant was indicted under Section 43.262(b) of the Texas Penal Code for knowingly possessing visual material depicting the lewd exhibition of the pubic area of a clothed child under 18 years old, which appealed to the prurient interest in sex and had no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.The appellant filed a pretrial writ application arguing that Section 43.262(b) was unconstitutional on several grounds, including that it was an impermissible content-based restriction on protected speech and was overbroad. The trial court denied the application, concluding that the statute was a content-based restriction but passed strict scrutiny, regulated only obscenity and child pornography, and was not void for vagueness.The First Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Section 43.262(b) was unconstitutional because it regulated protected speech, did not survive strict scrutiny, and was overbroad. The court of appeals concluded that the statute did not regulate only child pornography or obscenity and that the State failed to show a compelling interest in regulating child erotica.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reversed the court of appeals' decision. It held that Section 43.262(b) regulates only child pornography, an unprotected category of speech. The court concluded that the statute was not an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech because it met the criteria established by the United States Supreme Court for regulating child pornography. The court also held that the appellant failed to preserve his overbreadth claim for appellate review. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to address the remaining points of error. View "EX PARTE LOWRY" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Judge Kerry L. Burman, the Glendive City Judge, and Mayor Deb Dion of Glendive, Montana. Judge Burman petitioned for a writ of mandamus to reinstate Mary York to her position as Clerk of Glendive City Court after Mayor Dion terminated York's employment. The termination occurred following a disagreement over the justification for York's attendance at a training conference. York was terminated without notice and escorted out of the court, leaving unfinished work and causing operational disruptions.The District Court initially ordered York's interim reinstatement pending further review. Judge Burman argued that Mayor Dion's actions violated state statute, the court's holding in Carlson v. City of Bozeman, and the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Respondents contended that Mayor Dion had the statutory authority to terminate York, who was still in her probationary period, and that the court's operations were not significantly impaired.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court determined that the matter was more appropriately characterized as an application for a writ of prohibition rather than mandamus. The court found that Mayor Dion's actions disrupted the court's operations and violated § 3-1-111, MCA, which grants courts the authority to control their ministerial officers. The court held that the executive's authority to hire or fire employees must be exercised in a manner that does not impair the court's ability to conduct its business.The Supreme Court of Montana granted the petition for a writ of prohibition, arresting Mayor Dion's action of terminating York's employment. The court emphasized the need for coordination between branches of government to avoid such disruptions. View "Burman v. City of Glendive" on Justia Law

Robert Decker, a federal inmate, requested electronic access to the full, daily editions of the Federal Register from his prison law library. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) denied his request, prompting Decker to file a pro se lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act. He claimed that the denial violated his First Amendment rights to receive information and petition the government. The BOP argued that its policy was justified by the need to conserve limited resources.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the BOP. The court applied the framework from Turner v. Safley, concluding that the BOP’s policy was reasonably related to its legitimate penological interest in conserving resources. The district court also denied Decker’s motions for the recruitment of counsel, finding that he was competent to litigate his case despite the challenges of incarceration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the BOP’s policy was reasonably related to its legitimate interest in conserving resources. The court noted that the BOP provided access to documents pertaining to the Bureau and the U.S. Parole Commission and allowed inmates to receive print copies of the Federal Register through the mail. The court found that Decker had alternative means to exercise his First Amendment rights, although they were less convenient. The court also upheld the district court’s denial of Decker’s motions for the recruitment of counsel, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In summary, the Seventh Circuit held that the BOP’s policy of providing limited electronic access to the Federal Register was constitutionally valid under Turner v. Safley and that the district court did not err in denying Decker’s request for appointed counsel. View "Decker v. Sireveld" on Justia Law