Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this case heard by the Supreme Court of Iowa, the defendant, Morgan Marie McMickle, was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). McMickle was stopped by law enforcement after rear-ending another vehicle and leaving the scene. The investigating officer obtained a search warrant to collect a blood sample from McMickle for chemical testing, which showed a blood alcohol content over three times the legal limit. Additionally, McMickle repeatedly asked to speak to her lawyer but was denied. She later filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the use of a search warrant instead of the statutory implied consent procedure violated her rights, and that her right to counsel was violated under Iowa Code section 804.20.The district court granted McMickle's motion, determining that the officer's use of a search warrant was not authorized, that the officer had no statutory authority to collect and test bodily specimens, and that the officer's actions violated McMickle's constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Additionally, the court found that the officer's refusal of McMickle's requests to speak to her lawyer violated her rights under section 804.20. As a result, the court ordered the suppression of McMickle's statements and the results of the blood test.However, the Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court held that the statutory implied consent procedure was not the exclusive means by which an officer can investigate suspected OWI offenses, and that a law enforcement officer's decision to obtain and execute a search warrant did not violate a suspect's constitutional rights. The court also ruled that although McMickle's rights under section 804.20 were violated, the blood test results should not have been suppressed because they were obtained through a legally issued search warrant, independent of any violation of section 804.20. The case was remanded back to the lower court. View "State of Iowa v. McMickle" on Justia Law

In the state of Iowa, a police officer investigated a suspected case of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The officer pulled over the suspect, Colby Laub, and obtained a search warrant to collect a breath specimen for chemical testing after Laub refused to participate in field sobriety testing. The chemical testing showed that Laub had a blood alcohol content well above the legal limit, and he was subsequently arrested. Laub moved to suppress the evidence of the chemical breath test, as well as statements he had made to the officer, arguing that the officer was required to invoke the statutory implied consent procedure and give him the opportunity to refuse to provide a sample, rather than proceed with a search warrant. The district court agreed with Laub and granted his motion on the grounds that the officer had no statutory authority to obtain a search warrant to collect and test bodily specimens, and that doing so violated Laub's constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The state appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court erred in holding that the statutory implied consent procedure is the only way a law enforcement officer can obtain a bodily specimen and conduct chemical testing in investigating an OWI case. The court noted that the officer's decision to obtain a search warrant instead of invoking the statutory implied consent procedure did not violate the defendant's rights to equal protection or due process. The court also disagreed with the district court's interpretation of the statute, stating that the statutory implied consent law is not the exclusive means by which a law enforcement officer can obtain a breath sample in an OWI case. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's suppression ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State of Iowa v. Laub" on Justia Law

In the case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the defendant, Robert Whipple, appealed the denial of his motions to suppress evidence. Whipple was charged with bank robbery for three incidents that occurred in March 2020. He claimed that law enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they subpoenaed Walmart for his purchase history, searched his phone after the expiration of the warrant for his phone, and unlawfully seized his car.The court affirmed the district court's denial of Whipple’s motions to suppress evidence, finding no merit in his claims. The court held that the subpoena for Whipple's specific purchase at Walmart, which was linked to the robbery, did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The court concluded that Whipple did not demonstrate a legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy in his specific purchase and subscriber information. His information was not automatically disclosed; instead, he actively and voluntarily disclosed his information to Walmart, and thus the third-party doctrine applied.Regarding the seizure and subsequent search of his car, the court applied the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which allows law enforcement to seize and search an automobile where there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the car. The court held that there was probable cause to believe that Whipple used his car during the bank robberies and that it contained evidence of those crimes.Lastly, the court held that the search of Whipple’s cellphone was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, despite being conducted after the initial warrant had expired. The court noted that the federal rules of criminal procedure permit law enforcement to conduct searches of lawfully seized phones after they are seized, and a warrant's execution date does not apply to off-site investigation and analysis of a cellphone's contents. View "United States v. Whipple" on Justia Law

In 1999, Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder in a Texas state court and sentenced to death. Since 2011, Gutierrez’s efforts to secure post-conviction DNA testing have been denied in state and federal court. In this federal case, Gutierrez claimed that a certain limitation in Texas’s DNA testing statute was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, ultimately concluded that Gutierrez did not have standing to make this claim. The court found that even if the DNA testing statute was declared unconstitutional, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had already held that Gutierrez would have no right to DNA testing. The court reasoned that any new evidence would not overcome the overwhelming evidence of Gutierrez's direct involvement in the multi-assailant murder. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for the complaint to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Gutierrez v. Saenz" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, a Minnesota-based company, Ellingson Drainage, Inc., was charged a use tax by the South Dakota Department of Revenue (DOR) after an audit revealed Ellingson had not paid use tax on equipment used in South Dakota but purchased elsewhere. Ellingson challenged the constitutionality of the tax in an administrative appeal, which was dismissed. The company then appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the imposition of the tax, holding it did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Interstate Commerce Clause. Ellingson appealed this decision and the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota also affirmed the imposition of the tax.The Court determined that the use tax, imposed under SDCL 10-46-3, met all four prongs of the Complete Auto test, which is used to determine if a tax violates the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Court found that Ellingson had a sufficient connection to South Dakota, the tax was fairly related to benefits provided to the taxpayer, the tax did not discriminate against interstate commerce, and the tax was fairly apportioned. Moreover, the Court concluded that the use tax did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as Ellingson had a sufficient connection to South Dakota and the statute was rationally related to South Dakota values.The Court rejected Ellingson's argument that the tax was unfairly disproportionate to the extent of the equipment’s usage in South Dakota, stating that "use is use" and that the provisions of SDCL 10-46-3 do not contemplate a formula by which to measure use. The Court concluded that such a change is not a judicial one, but rather one better suited to the formulation of public policy by the Legislature. View "Ellingson Drainage v. Dep’t Of Revenue" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, defendant William Parsons was convicted on three felony counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and one misdemeanor count of disseminating harmful material to a minor. The prosecution's case was largely based on video evidence from two interviews with the minor victim, conducted by a medical social worker at a children's evaluation service that specializes in abuse cases. The victim did not testify at the trial. On appeal, Parsons argued that the admission of the video evidence violated his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause, as he was not given an opportunity to confront his accuser.The court agreed with Parsons, concluding that the videos were submitted to the jury in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The court found that the primary purpose of the victim's interviews was to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution, rather than to provide medical care. Therefore, the statements in the interviews were testimonial in nature. Since the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim, the court held that it was error to admit the videos at trial. The court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "State v. Parsons" on Justia Law

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a man named Troy Dale Green for various offenses, including trafficking in methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. Green appealed his conviction, arguing that the testimony of a detective who had not personally performed the extraction of data from his cellphone violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The court disagreed, ruling that the detective's testimony did not violate Green's rights because the detective had sufficient knowledge and experience to analyze the extracted data and independently conclude that the data came from Green's phone. The court also rejected Green's argument that the text messages from his phone were not properly authenticated under Idaho's rules of evidence. The court found that the detective's testimony, along with that of two other detectives, sufficiently authenticated the text messages. The court affirmed Green's conviction. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, Robert Evan Woodham was convicted for failing to yield to stationary emergency vehicles in violation of Utah Code subsection 41-6a-904(2). The conviction was upheld by the district court, after which Woodham appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals. However, the appellate court dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing that the district court did not rule on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, which is a requirement for appellate review under Utah Code § 78A-7-118(11). Woodham then petitioned the Supreme Court of Utah, arguing the district court implicitly ruled on his constitutional argument.The Supreme Court of Utah clarified that an implicit ruling by the district court on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance is sufficient to permit appellate review under Utah Code subsection 78A-7-118(11), overruling a contrary holding by the Utah Court of Appeals in Murray City v. Timmerman. However, the Court agreed with the appellate court's decision in Woodham's case, stating that he did not preserve a constitutional challenge to the emergency vehicle statute, and therefore, the district court did not implicitly rule on its constitutionality. Consequently, the dismissal of Woodham's appeal due to lack of jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Park City v. Woodham" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Derrick Sherwood appealed a district court order denying his motion to vacate a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. The court held a hearing and entered a DVPO restraining Derrick Sherwood from having contact with Valerie Sherwood, his ex-wife, and their two minor children. The order also required Derrick Sherwood to surrender his firearms to law enforcement. Later, the court amended the DVPO to remove the restriction on Derrick Sherwood’s possession of firearms. Derrick Sherwood later moved to vacate the DVPO altogether.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Derrick Sherwood’s request to treat Valerie Sherwood as a hostile witness or in denying Derrick Sherwood’s motion to vacate the DVPO. The court also held that the district court did not err in awarding Valerie Sherwood attorney’s fees.Furthermore, the court held that Derrick Sherwood did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02(4)(g), which allows a DVPO to require, under certain circumstances, that the respondent surrender any firearm or other specified dangerous weapon. As the DVPO was amended to allow Derrick Sherwood to possess firearms, he did not have a justiciable controversy regarding the constitutionality of this statute.The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Sherwood v. Sherwood" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision finding Erica Good Bear guilty of terrorizing, a class C felony. Good Bear appealed the judgment, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, improper admission of hearsay evidence, and denial of her right to confront a witness. The alleged hearsay evidence was two statements made by the victim's four-year-old child, both of which were recounted by other witnesses. The first statement was recounted by the victim, and the second was recounted by the responding police officer. The court concluded that both statements fell under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule, making them admissible. The court also found that the second statement did not violate Good Bear's right to confront her accuser, as it was not considered "testimonial" under the Sixth Amendment. The court determined that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict of guilty on the terrorizing charge. View "State v. Good Bear" on Justia Law