Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A defendant accessed the internet using a publicly available Wi-Fi network operated by a local business, A&W, located near his home. Access to the Wi-Fi required users to acknowledge terms of service that, among other things, stated A&W did not actively monitor the network but could cooperate with legal authorities and disclose users’ activities in response to lawful requests. After A&W’s owner and their consultant noticed suspicious activity flagged by their firewall, they informed law enforcement, which then directed A&W to monitor and log the defendant’s internet activity for approximately one year. This surveillance included tracking over 255,000 webpage visits and collecting packet capture data. Information obtained through this monitoring led to the defendant’s identification, arrest, and conviction on charges of encouraging child sexual abuse.The case was first heard in the Lane County Circuit Court, where the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from the year-long monitoring. The trial court found A&W’s owner and consultant acted as state agents but ruled that the defendant had no protected privacy interest in his use of the public Wi-Fi network, and denied the suppression motion. After a stipulated facts trial, the court convicted the defendant. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the defendant did not have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his internet browsing activities on the public network under the circumstances.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals in part, and reversed the judgment of the circuit court, remanding the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a person retains a right to privacy in their internet browsing activities even when accessing the internet via a public network, and that acknowledging terms of service like those present did not eliminate that privacy right. The year-long warrantless monitoring constituted a “search,” and the State failed to justify the lack of a warrant. View "State v. Simons" on Justia Law

In 2003, Robert Arnett was convicted in Pennsylvania for engaging in sexual activity with a fourteen-year-old, resulting in his plea of guilty to several offenses, including aggravated indecent assault and statutory sexual assault. He received a sentence of five to ten years’ incarceration. At the time, Pennsylvania’s sexual offender law—known as Megan’s Law—required Arnett to register as a sexual offender for life. After Arnett’s release, the law was replaced by successive statutes, culminating in the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act II (SORNA II), which continued to require his lifetime registration. Arnett, more than fifteen years after his sentence became final, filed a pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), later amended by counsel, challenging SORNA II’s constitutionality.The York County Court of Common Pleas considered Arnett’s PCRA petition, holding a hearing without witness testimony. The court found SORNA II unconstitutional as applied to Arnett, granted his petition, and enjoined enforcement of the registration requirements. The Commonwealth appealed. The Superior Court determined that constitutional challenges to SORNA fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and transferred the appeal accordingly.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the PCRA is a proper mechanism for challenging the constitutionality of a non-punitive sexual offender registration statute like SORNA II. The court held that the PCRA, by its plain terms, is limited to challenges related to a conviction or sentence and does not provide a vehicle for relief from non-punitive collateral consequences such as SORNA II’s registration requirements. The court vacated the lower court’s order granting relief, dismissed Arnett’s petition under the PCRA, and declined to address whether other mechanisms—such as habeas corpus—may be used to challenge SORNA II, reserving that question for future cases. View "Commonwealth v. Arnett" on Justia Law

A 12-year-old seventh-grade student was accused by a classmate of inappropriate touching at school. The following day, two police officers, neither previously known to the student, removed him from class for questioning. The first interrogation took place in a small, closed office used by the school resource officer, with one officer questioning the child and another, fully uniformed and armed, standing in front of the door. No Miranda warnings were given, and the student was not told he could leave, refuse to answer, or contact his parents. He eventually admitted that he may have accidentally touched the other student. Less than an hour later, questioning continued in a school suspension cubicle, where multiple authority figures, including the officers and an assistant principal, stood around him and asked more direct questions, resulting in a similar admission.The State charged the student with Fourth Degree Sexual Assault. Before trial in the Manitowoc County Circuit Court, the student sought to suppress his statements to law enforcement, arguing violations of Miranda v. Arizona and involuntariness. The circuit court denied suppression, finding the interrogations non-custodial and voluntary. After a bench trial, the court adjudicated the student delinquent. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Miranda did not apply because the student was not in custody and that his statements were voluntary.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case. It concluded that the student was in custody for Miranda purposes during both interrogations and that the lack of Miranda warnings rendered his statements inadmissible. However, the court found that admitting the statements was harmless error: the essential evidence was provided by other witnesses, and the statements were not crucial to the finding of delinquency. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. View "State v. K. R. C." on Justia Law

Two men entered a Pittsburgh home in 2014 during a robbery, confronting the residents, Leonard Butler and Tina Chapple. Both victims were forced into the basement at gunpoint. While one perpetrator, later identified as Derek Lee, pistol-whipped Butler and took his watch, Butler struggled with the other participant, Paul Durham, resulting in Butler’s death by gunfire. The investigation linked Lee to the scene via a rental vehicle and a victim’s identification. Lee was charged and a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, robbery causing serious bodily injury, and conspiracy, but not first-degree murder. By law, second-degree murder in Pennsylvania—felony murder—carries a mandatory sentence of life without parole, which was imposed.Lee did not file a direct appeal but, after post-conviction proceedings restored his rights, he moved to modify his sentence, arguing that mandatory life without parole for felony murder was unconstitutional under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas denied relief, as did the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which found itself bound by prior case law holding that such a sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment, particularly for adults, and that the state constitution provided no broader protection than its federal counterpart.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether a mandatory life without parole sentence for all felony murder convictions, without individualized assessment of culpability, violates the Eighth Amendment or Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court held that, although the sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment as currently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Article I, Section 13 provides greater protection. The Court concluded that mandatory life without parole for all felony murder convictions, absent consideration of individual culpability, constitutes cruel punishment under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The order of the Superior Court was reversed, the sentence vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing, with a 120-day stay for legislative action. View "Commonwealth v. Lee" on Justia Law

In 2000, Scot Perry Christian was indicted on multiple charges, including two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and two counts of first-degree felony murder, related to the shooting deaths of two individuals during an armed robbery at a motel in Austin, Minnesota. At trial, eyewitnesses testified that Christian and his accomplice, both armed, entered the motel room, demanded money, and, when one of the victims called for help, Christian instructed his accomplice to shoot. Both men then fired, resulting in two deaths and one injury. Physical evidence further implicated Christian. The jury found Christian guilty of all charges, and the district court entered convictions on the felony murder counts, imposing consecutive life sentences.Christian appealed his convictions to the Minnesota Supreme Court, raising issues including the denial of his right to self-representation and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed his convictions. Years later, after the Minnesota Legislature amended the felony murder statutes and created a process for certain individuals convicted under an aiding-and-abetting theory to seek relief, Christian submitted a preliminary application for relief under the new law. He asserted that he neither caused nor intentionally aided in causing the deaths, but presented no new facts.The Mower County District Court denied Christian’s preliminary application, finding there was not a reasonable probability that he was entitled to relief under the statute, given the trial evidence and Christian’s own concession on appeal that he told his accomplice to shoot. The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and held that the district court acted within its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Christian’s admissions and the trial record demonstrated he intentionally aided his accomplice with the intent to cause death, rendering him ineligible for relief under the 2023 legislation. View "State of Minnesota vs. Christian" on Justia Law

Four employees of the University of Puerto Rico sought to stop the deduction of union dues from their paychecks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, which held that public sector employees could not be compelled to pay union dues without consent. Despite their requests, the University and the union continued to deduct dues for nearly three years. The employees then brought suit against the University’s president and the union, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico largely granted summary judgment to the University president and the union, finding no constitutional violation. However, the court ordered the union to reimburse the employees for dues deducted after their resignations but denied interest and did not grant declaratory or injunctive relief. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the employees’ Puerto Rico law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was asked only to direct the district court to issue declaratory judgments stating that the past and potential future deductions were unconstitutional. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. It held that a declaration regarding past conduct would be merely advisory because the deductions had already ceased and a judgment ordering reimbursement was in place. The court also found the request for prospective relief moot, as the University and union had admitted their error, stopped the deductions, and adopted new policies to comply with Janus. The court concluded there was no substantial controversy remaining and that the voluntary cessation doctrine did not apply under these facts. The appeal was therefore dismissed as moot. View "Ramos-Ramos v. Jordan-Conde" on Justia Law

A White police officer employed by the Atlanta Police Department alleged that he was denied a promotion to Captain in December 2014 and was later removed from a flexible work schedule after he reported alleged misconduct by superiors. The officer had previously reported in 2008 that Black supervisors were allegedly treating White officers less favorably, which resulted in tension but was not shown to have been communicated to the ultimate decisionmaker for promotions. In 2015, after reporting possible ticket-fixing by his superiors to internal and federal authorities, the officer was required to work a fixed schedule, which impacted his ability to work a second job and fulfill childcare obligations.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed or granted summary judgment on most of the officer’s claims, including those under Title VII for racial discrimination and retaliation, and under the Georgia Whistleblower Act. The court found no evidence that the Police Chief, who was the sole decisionmaker for promotions, was aware of the officer’s 2008 discrimination complaint, and further held that the officer had not experienced an adverse employment action as required by the statutes. At trial, the jury found for the City on the Title VII discrimination claim, concluding the officer had not been denied a promotion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s rulings, including summary judgment for the City on the Title VII and Whistleblower Act claims and the jury verdict on the discrimination claim. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Chief and another supervisor on the First Amendment retaliation claim, holding that revoking the officer’s flexible schedule constituted a material adverse action sufficient to support such a claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this First Amendment issue. View "Joyner v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was released from custody on the express condition that he appear at a scheduled adjudicatory hearing related to an unrelated felony. He failed to appear at the specified time and place, leading the State to charge him with the felony offense of Bail Jumping under Montana law. The defendant was arrested about ten weeks after missing the hearing. He pled not guilty and subsequently moved to dismiss the charge, arguing both that the statute was unconstitutionally vague—particularly regarding the requirement that his failure to appear be “without lawful excuse”—and that the State had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish probable cause, since it did not affirmatively show he lacked a lawful excuse.The Twentieth Judicial District Court of Montana denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant then entered a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He admitted to the facts constituting the offense, including that he did not have a lawful excuse for missing the hearing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether Montana’s bail-jumping statute is unconstitutionally vague and whether the State must allege facts negating the existence of a lawful excuse to establish probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the statute provides fair notice and sufficient guidelines to defendants and law enforcement, and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant’s conduct. The Court also held that the State is not required to allege or prove the absence of a lawful excuse in its charging documents; rather, the existence of a lawful excuse is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the initial burden of production. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "State v. Trombley" on Justia Law

The case concerns the suspension of a driver’s license by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) after the driver, stopped for erratic driving and suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, refused a chemical test when properly advised of the consequences. At the administrative hearing regarding his suspension, the DMV’s hearing officer introduced evidence, asked clarifying questions, and ruled on objections, all while stating she was acting as a neutral factfinder rather than as an advocate for the DMV. The driver argued that the hearing officer’s dual roles violated his due process rights by making her both a prosecutor and adjudicator.After the DMV sustained the license suspension, the driver petitioned the Superior Court of Alameda County for a writ of mandate, claiming that the hearing officer functioned as both advocate and judge, creating an unconstitutional risk of bias. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the DMV’s current policy required hearing officers to act only as neutral decisionmakers and that no due process violation occurred.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the denial. The court clarified that due process requires an impartial adjudicator but does not prohibit the same person from developing the evidence and making a decision in an administrative setting, so long as there is no disqualifying interest or extraordinary evidence of bias. The court held that the DMV’s current structure does not violate due process, as hearing officers are presumed impartial and their actions in presenting evidence do not turn them into advocates. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. The court expressly declined to follow recent decisions adopting an “appearance of bias” standard and reinforced that only an actual, constitutionally intolerable risk of bias triggers a due process violation. View "Chi v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in Oregon in 2001 of attempted unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree and sexual abuse in the second degree. After completing his sentence, including probation, in 2014, he moved to Montana in 2016 and registered as a sexual offender as required by law. In 2023, the Montana Department of Justice attempted to verify his address, but the verification was returned undeliverable. The defendant left a voicemail reporting a new address but did not update his registration in person, as required by the current statute.The State of Montana charged the defendant in 2024 with failure to register as a sexual offender, expressly citing the 2023 version of the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) in its charging documents. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that retroactive application of the 2023 SVORA to his pre-2007 conviction violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Montana Constitution. The Second Judicial District Court agreed and dismissed the charge, concluding that applying the 2023 SVORA retroactively was unconstitutional.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the State charged the defendant under the 2023 SVORA—and this Court has previously held that the post-2007 version of SVORA is punitive and cannot be applied retroactively to convictions predating its enactment—the prosecution could not stand. The Court emphasized that the State could not rely on older versions of SVORA not cited in the charging documents and did not address arguments regarding restoration of rights, limiting its decision to the ex post facto violation. The order of dismissal was affirmed. View "State v. Pratt" on Justia Law