Civil Rights

Weekly Summaries Distributed April 24, 2015 In re: Nassau Cnty Strip Search Cases Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Class Action  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit State v. Lyon Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Iowa Supreme Court Vargas v. City of Philadelphia Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Injury Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Wade v. Collier Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit State v. Overman Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Kansas Supreme Court Hailes v. State Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Maryland Court of Appeals Kinnan v. Sitka Counseling Civil Rights, Landlord - Tenant  Alaska Supreme Court United States v. Mazzarella Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit United States v. Gross Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Standley v. Edmonds-Leach Civil Procedure, Civil Rights  U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Schlemm v. Frank Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Native American Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit People v. Lloyd Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  California Court of Appeal State v. Yancey Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Maryland Court of Appeals Novak v. Bank of New York Mellon Civil Rights  U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit United States v. Graf Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Danny B. v. Raimondo Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Family Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Parsons v. Ryan Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Class Action  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States v. Alvarez-Ulloa Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. New Breed Logistics Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit State v. Her Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Minnesota Supreme Court State v. Fox Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Minnesota Supreme Court State v. Fraga Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Minnesota Supreme Court Pizzuto v. Ramirez Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Jones v. Clarke Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit United States v. Guzman-Batista Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Melanie M. v. Winterer Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law  Nebraska Supreme Court Anderson v. Geist Civil Procedure, Civil Rights  California Court of Appeal State v. Griep Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Wisconsin Supreme Court

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

In re: Nassau Cnty Strip Search Cases Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket: 14-1388 Opinion Date: April 17, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Class Action A 1999 suit alleged that plaintiffs had been arrested on misdemeanor charges and were strip searched, without individualized suspicion, in violation of their federal and state constitutional rights. Nassau County conceded liability. The Second Circuit instructed the court to certify a class as to liability and to consider whether to certify a class as to damages. The district court certified both classes, granted summary judgment on liability, and held a bench trial on damages. In 2012, before the district court entered judgment, Nassau County moved to vacate the summary judgment and to dismiss the action based on the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, that “every detainee who will be admitted to the general population [of a jail] may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed. The court granted the motion as to the federal claim, but determined that Florence did not warrant vacatur of the concession of liability with respect to the state claim, and awarded $11.5 million. While appeal was pending, Nassau County moved to stay enforcement pending appeal. The district court ruled that the obligation to deposit the funds with the court would be stayed for 180 days, or indefinitely, if Nassau County posted a bond. The Second Circuit stayed the requirement of deposit or bond. http://j.st/4d2Z View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Lyon Court: Iowa Supreme Court Docket: 131938 Opinion Date: April 17, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law A police officer stopped Defendant’s vehicle based upon a suspicion that Defendant was operating a vehicle without proper illumination. Defendant was subsequently arrested for, and charged with, driving while intoxicated. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop and that, after his arrest, his rightsunder Iowa Code 804.20 were violated because the officer failed properly to inform him of the purpose of a phone call. The district court denied the motion. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the deputy had a reasonable suspicion that there was no working license plate light on Defendant’s vehicle; and (2) law enforcement officers are not required to explain that a purpose of the phone call is to obtain advice regarding whether to submit to a chemical test. http://j.st/4d63 View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Vargas v. City of Philadelphia Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Docket: 13-4590 Opinion Date: April 17, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Injury Law Around midnight, 15-year old Tabitha had a severe asthma attack at her North Philadelphia home. Her mother, Vargas, called 911. Waiting for the paramedics to arrive, Vargas went outside and found Tabitha lying on the sidewalk, gasping for air. She quickly lapsed into unconsciousness. Tabitha’s cousin unsuccessfully performed CPRl. Neighbors lifted Tabitha into a car belonging to Diaz, so that Diaz could take her to the hospital. Meanwhile, Vargas and Diaz placed five frantic 911 calls between 12:08 a.m. and 12:14 a.m. In response to “a person screaming” in a call made at 12:10 a.m. officers were dispatched. Neither was aware that the call involved a medical emergency. The events following the arrival of the officers at 12:13 are disputed. The family claims the officers blocked Diaz’s car. Both officers assert that they did not. Contemporaneous dispatch records indicate that, from the time the officers noted their arrival, to the time the ambulance arrived, was just over one minute. Paramedics loaded Tabitha into the ambulance and provided CPR. She arrived at the hospital at 12:28, having suffered a severe anoxic brain injury, and died two weeks later. The district court dismissed claims against the city and officers. The Third Circuit affirmed. The undisputed facts show that the actions of the officers were reasonable in responding to a volatile situation. http://j.st/4d2J View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Wade v. Collier Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 13-3207 Opinion Date: April 17, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law In 2004, Thurman, a drug dealer, attempted to bribe four Maywood police officers. They reported the attempt to the State’s Attorney. That Office also learned that an individual arrested by Maywood police had stated that Thurman had officers on his payroll. An undercover sting, “Operation Pocket Change,” began with the officers pretending to be dirty cops and accepting from Thurman weekly payments of $1,200. Monitoring Thurman’s cell phone (with a warrant), revealed numerous contacts between Thurman and Officer Wade, resulting in a wiretap. The team agreed to announce, at a roll call at which Wade was present, that officers should stay clear of an area in which Thurman’s dealers were known to sell. In intercepted telephone calls, Wade warned Thurman that “Granny’s house was hot.” Wade claims that he did not hear the announcement, but made up the tip in an attempt to turn Thurman into a confidential informant. A search of Wade’s home computer uncovered a fraudulent arrest warrant for Thurman. Thurman later stated that Wade helped him rob a supplier by pretending to arrest him and seizing the drugs, using the fake warrant. A jury acquitted Wade, who sued the village and the officers for equal protection violations and malicious prosecution. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Probable cause supported his prosecution. Wade cannot succeed by reframing the claim as a class-of-one equal protection claim. The court noted Wade’s failure to identify a similarly-situated individual who was treated more favorably. http://j.st/4d23 View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Overman Court: Kansas Supreme Court Docket:105504 Opinion Date: April 17, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six drug offenses. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, resulting in a reversal of one of Defendant’s convictions and the vacating of one of his sentences. Those issues were not before the Supreme Court for review. On appeal, Defendant sought the Court’s review of that portion of the court of appeals’ decision that was adverse to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his vehicle; (2) convicting Defendant for the separate offenses of possessing red phosphorous and iodine and possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, as those convictions were not multiplicitous; and (3) using Defendant’s prior convictions to enhance his sentence. http://j.st/4d6w View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Hailes v. State Court: Maryland Court of Appeals Docket:62/14 Opinion Date: April 17, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law The State charged Petitioner with first-degree murder and other crimes. Petitioner moved to suppress a pretrial identification on the grounds that the identification was hearsay and inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. The identification was made by the victim (“declarant”) two years before his death. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress, determining that the declarant’s identification of Defendant fell under the “dying declaration” exception to the rule against hearsay but was testimonial and inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. The Court of Special Appeals reversed, concluding that the declarant made a dying declaration and that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to dying declarations. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the State may appeal from a trial court’s exclusion of intangible evidence based on a determination that the evidence’s admission would be a constitutional violation; (2) the circuit court was correct in determining that the declarant’s identification of Defendant was a dying declaration; and (3) the Confrontation Clause is not applicable to dying declarations, and therefore, the Court need not address whether the declarant’s identification of Defendant was testimonial or non-testimonial. http://j.st/4d6i View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Kinnan v. Sitka Counseling Court: Alaska Supreme Court Docket: S-15437 Opinion Date: April 17, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Landlord - Tenant Arthur Kinnan lived in a residence as part of a substance abuse treatment program operated by Sitka Counseling. Funding for that program ended, and Sitka Counseling informed Kinnan that he would be required to vacate. Kinnan filed suit against Sitka Counseling and two of its staff members, unsuccessfully alleging several torts based on the defendants’ conduct when removing him from the premises, violations of Alaska’s Landlord Tenant Act, and deprivation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Kinnan argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the superior court wrongfully denied a continuance to allow him to seek counsel, wrongfully excluded the testimony of a late-disclosed witness and two affidavits, and improperly facilitated questioning regarding Kinnan’s mental disability. The Supreme Court concluded that any error resulting from the exclusion of Kinnan’s witness was harmless and saw no abuse of discretion in the superior court’s denial of Kinnan’s continuance, its exclusion of the affidavits as hearsay, or its consideration of Kinnan’s mental disability. Furthermore, the Court also rejected Kinnan’s argument that the superior court’s adverse rulings created an appearance of judicial bias. http://j.st/4d2v View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

United States v. Mazzarella Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 12-10171 Opinion Date: April 20, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of twelve felony counts related to a complex mortgage fraud scheme. Defendant filed two motions for a new trial, arguing that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding material exculpatory evidence and violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The district court denied the motions, concluding that Defendant’s rights under Brady and the Fourth Amendment had not been violated. A panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders denying Defendant’s motions for a new trial and remanded, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s requests for an evidentiary hearing and for discovery; (2) should reconsider Defendant’s Brady claims on an open record, in conjunction with the additional disclosure with which Defendant sought to augment the record on appeal; and (3) erred in concluding that an employee’s copying of documents from Defendant’s real estate and investment offices was not a search implicating the Fourth Amendment. http://j.st/4duh View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

United States v. Gross Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitDocket: 13-3102 Opinion Date: April 21, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Gun Recovery Unit officers were in an unmarked car, wearing vests that said “police.” Gross was walking the sidewalk. Officer Bagshaw slowed the car and shined a flashlight, saying “[H]ey, it is the police, how are you doing? Do you have a gun?” Gross stopped, but did not answer. Bagshaw stopped the car and asked, “Can I see your waistband?” Not speaking, Gross lifted his jacket to show his left side. Bagshaw began to move the car. Officer Katz asked Bagshaw to stop, opened his door and asked, while stepping out, “[H]ey man, can I check you out for a gun?” Gross ran. Katz gave chase, saw Gross patting his right side, and smelled PCP. Katz apprehended Gross, performed a frisk, and recovered a handgun from Gross’s waistband. Denying a motion to suppress, the court reasoned that no seizure occurred until after Gross fled because nothing would have indicated to a reasonable person that he lacked freedom to disregard the questions and walk away; Gross’s flight and other behavior, provided reasonable grounds to detain him and conduct a pat-down frisk. Gross was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The D.C. Circuit affirmed. Given the totality of the circumstances and precedents involving comparable interactions, Bagshaw’s questioning did not effect a Fourth Amendment seizure. Once he attempted to flee, officers had authority to stop him and conduct the frisk. http://j.st/4dLG View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Standley v. Edmonds-Leach Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitDocket: 13-7104 Opinion Date: April 21, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights Standley went to a D.C. public library to complete her homework and study for upcoming college exams. She sat in an area of the library reserved for children. Officer Edmonds-Leach asked Standley to move. Finding no seats in the adult area, Standley relocated to the young-adult area, although she was too old to sit there. The officer again asked Standley to move. Aan altercation ensued. The officer arrested Standley. Standley sued Officer Leach and the District of Columbia for the unconstitutional use of excessive force and common law torts. At trial, Standley and Officer Leach disputed the specifics of their encounter. Other than an inconclusive video, the only evidence was provided by Kellar, a librarian. The court allowed the defense to call Kellar for impeachment, although Kellar had not been identified before trial in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and the defense had agreed not to call undisclosed witnesses. The D. C. Circuit reversed, finding that Kellar’s testimony was not confined to impeachment; that the outcome of the trial turned on the jury’s assessment of the credibility of Standley and Officer Edmonds-Leach; and that the testimony of the relatively disinterested witness likely influenced that outcome. http://j.st/4dLf View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Schlemm v. Frank Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 14-2604 Opinion Date: April 21, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Native American Law Schlemm, a member of the Navajo Tribe, and a prisoner, sought an order requiring the prison to accommodate his religious practices under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. Members of the Tribe honor the dead through dancing, praying, and eating traditional foods. Wisconsin concedes that this celebration is religious and that Schlemm sincerely believes that “traditional foods” should include game meat. The prison rejected his request for game meat or ground beef and his offer to secure a sealed platter from an outside vendor. The prison permits Jewish inmates to have outside vendors supply sealed Seder platters. Defendants maintain that serving venison would be too expensive, would exceed the capacity of institutional kitchens, and would violate a rule limiting prison foods to those certified by the USDA. The district court granted summary judgment, ruling that the denial does not impose a “substantial burden” on Schlemm’s religious exercise; the state has a “compelling governmental interest” in costs and using USDA-inspected meats; and that the denial is the “least restrictive means” of furthering those interests. The Seventh Circuit remanded, holding that the state was not entitled to summary judgment and ordering a preliminary injunction allowing Schlemm to order venison and to wear a multicolored headband while praying in his cell and during group ceremonies. http://j.st/4dLg View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

People v. Lloyd Court: California Court of Appeal Docket:G049197 Opinion Date: April 21, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law,

...

[Message clipped]  View entire message