Civil Rights

Weekly Summaries Distributed May 1, 2015 Ariz. Libertarian Party v. Bennett Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit State v. Luedtke Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Wisconsin Supreme Court State v. Vrabel Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Kansas Supreme Court San Antonio Water Sys. v. Nichols Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law  Supreme Court of Texas Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Legal Ethics  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Nunley v. Bowersox Civil Rights, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Commonwealth v. Canning Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court People v. Smith Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Supreme Court of California Turner v. Mull Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Hines Road, LLC v. Hall Civil Rights, Real Estate & Property Law  Rhode Island Supreme Court State v. Castagnola Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Supreme Court of Ohio United States v. Braxton Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Luna v. Kernan Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Rhodes v. State Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Wyoming Supreme Court Ragland v. United States Civil Rights, Criminal Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Raub v. Campbell Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Health Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Magness v. State Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Arkansas Supreme Court Hunter v. State Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Florida Supreme Court Hobart v. State Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Florida Supreme Court State v. Kierstead Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Maine Supreme Judicial Court Olson v. Champaign County Civil Rights, Constitutional Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit People v. Kopatz Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law  Supreme Court of California Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Comm. v. City of Santa Monica Civil Rights, Constitutional Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

Ariz. Libertarian Party v. Bennett Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 13-16254 Opinion Date: April 24, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law In 2011, the Arizona Legislature enacted a new law requiring voter registration forms to list the two largest parties, as well as provide a blank line for “other party preferences.” See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-152(A)(5). The Arizona Green Party, the Arizona Libertarian Party, and three of their members (together, Plaintiffs) brought this action alleging that the new voter registration form violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the form failed to “treat equally the four parties with Statewide continuing ballot access.” The district court granted summary judgment for the State. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing that section 16-152(A)(5) is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. http://j.st/4dzE View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Luedtke Court: Wisconsin Supreme CourtCitation: 2015 WI 42 Opinion Date: April 24, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Defendants in these two separate cases were found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in the blood, among other crimes. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the State did not violate Defendants’ due process rights when the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene had destroyed their blood samples in accordance with routine procedures before each defendant had the opportunity to test the samples. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in accordance with Arizona v. Youngblood, because Defendants’ blood samples were neither apparently exculpatory nor destroyed in bad faith, the State did not violate Defendants’ due process rights; and (2) operating a motor vehicle with a detective mount of a restricted controlled substance in the blood under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(am) is a strict liability offense that does not require scienter, and the statute is constitutional. http://j.st/4dza View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Vrabel Court: Kansas Supreme Court Docket:108930 Opinion Date: April 24, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Law enforcement officers employed by the City of Prairie Village set up a controlled drug buy from Defendant to occur in the City of Leawood. As a result of the controlled buy, the State charged Defendant with felony drug charges. Defendant moved to suppress the drugs and an audio recording of the controlled buy, arguing that the Prairie Village officers had obtained that evidence while exercising their police powers outside of their jurisdiction as authorized under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2401(a)(2). The district court granted the motion and suppressed the evidence. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the Prairie Village officers had jurisdiction in Leawood based on a provision in section 22-2401(a)(2)(b) allowing municipal officers to exceed their jurisdictional boundaries when another jurisdiction requests assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) the statutory limitations on the jurisdiction of city officers was put in place to protect the local autonomy of neighboring cities and counties, rather than to create an individualright; and (2) consequently, the suppression of any evidence obtained during a city officer’s unauthorized exercise of police power outside the officer’s employing city will generally not be required. http://j.st/4dzV View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

San Antonio Water Sys. v. Nichols Court: Supreme Court of Texas Docket: 13-0966 Opinion Date: April 24, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law Respondent, a former employee of San Antonio Water System (SAWS), sued SAWS under the Texas Commission on Human Rights (TCHRA), alleging that SAWS retaliated against her for opposing a discriminatory employment practice. Specifically, Respondent contended that she was terminated because she confronted a male vice president about his repeated lunch invitations to two female employees outside his department. The jury awarded Respondent nearly $1 million in damages. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the claim, holding that no reasonable person could have believed that sexual harassment under the TCHRA occurred, and therefore, Respondent did not engage in a protected activity under the TCHRA when she confronted the vice president. http://j.st/4dKC View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Docket: 14-1912 Opinion Date: April 27, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Legal Ethics Convent filed suit in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, seeking to appeal a resolution that the North Little Rock City Council passed declaring Convent's property a nuisance and condemning the property. In the same complaint, Convent asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code 16-123-101, and a common law claim of trespass. The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on the federal claims and then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court did not grant the motion, but found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Convent's claims based on Convent's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies; the court remanded the case to state court. Convent sought costs, fees, and expenses incurred due to “improper removal." The district court rejected the motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal of this action to federal court. http://j.st/4drp View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Nunley v. Bowersox Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Docket: 13-3627 Opinion Date: April 27, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law In 1991, Nunley pled guilty in Missouri state court to the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 15-year-old girl. After Nunley waived his right to jury sentencing, the state court sentenced him to death. He sought to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that his sentencing judge had been drinking before the sentencing proceeding. Nunley's motion to withdraw his plea was denied. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed rejection of that motion. He filed an action under 28 U.S.C. 2254, alleging that the state denied his constitutionally protected liberty interest in the right to capital jury sentencing as articulated in by the Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona (2002), and later applied retroactively under Missouri law. The district court denied Nunley's petition. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Nunley unequivocally waived his right to jury sentencing when he pled guilty. Nunley acknowledged the court’s warnings and waived his rights. He has since admitted that he made a strategic choice to waive jury sentencing because he believed a court was less likely to be inflamed by the details of his crime than a jury. http://j.st/4drf View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Commonwealth v. Canning Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial CourtDocket: SJC-11773 Opinion Date: April 27, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law In November 2012, voters approved the Commonwealth’s new medical marijuana law. In May 2013, Defendant was charged with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, distribution of marijuana, and conspiracy to violate the drug laws. The charges arose from a search of Defendant’s property pursuant to a search warrant issued in May 2013. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant. The district court allowed Defendant’s motion, concluding that the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant application demonstrated probable cause that Defendant was cultivating marijuana at the property but, in light of the act, failed to establish probable cause that Defendant was not authorized to do so and therefore was committing a crime. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search. http://j.st/4drX View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

People v. Smith Court: Supreme Court of California Docket:S112442A Opinion Date: April 27, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, with the special circumstance of torture, false imprisonment by violence, and conspiracy to commit murder. The jury recommended a sentence of death, and the trial court imposed that sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but reversed the penalty judgment, holding that, during the penalty phase, the court violated Defendant’s federal constitutional rights to due process by excluding expert testimony about prison security measures for those sentenced to life without possibility of parole because Defendant was deprived of the opportunity to counter aggravating evidence and argument suggesting that he would be a dangerous life prisoner. http://j.st/4dr2 View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Turner v. Mull Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Docket: 14-1589 Opinion Date: April 28, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Turner, a Missouri inmate, suffered from a neurological disorder but was able to ambulate, stand, and sit by using leg braces and crutches. Although Turner received medical care several times, no physician ordered a wheelchair or transport by wheelchair-accessible van. The facility had a wheelchair-accessible van with a "lift," but restricted its use to wheelchair users. Signage on the van advised that only wheelchairs were allowed on the lift and that standing on it was forbidden to avoid falls. For transport to a medical appointment, Turner arrived with neither a wheelchair nor a physician's order to use a wheelchair-accessible van. Turner alleges that he had to enter the van by crawling; that urine and vomit were on its floor, so that he was unable to eat while traveling; and that, during his return trip the driver stopped near a bridge and stated that the guards could drown Turner and claim that Turner tried to escape., Turner filed an Inmate Resolution Request; according to Turner, prison staff "ransacked" his cell and were verbally abusive in retaliation and that when he was moved to another prison, he was transported in a non-wheelchair-accessible van for part of the trip. The Eighth Circuit affirmed rejection of Turner’s claims of violations the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; the Americans with Disabilities Act,, 42 U.S.C. 12131; and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. http://j.st/4dHG View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Hines Road, LLC v. Hall Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court Docket:13-257 Opinion Date: April 28, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Real Estate & Property Law Petitioners’ property directly abutted property identified as the Hines Road property, owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff and the Town of Cumberland came to an agreement regarding a retaining wall on the Hines Road property in close proximity to Petitioners’ property. Plaintiff later filed a complaint against the Town to litigate issues relating to the agreement. Petitioners moved to intervene in the underlying superior court action. The hearing justice denied the motion to intervene, concluding that Petitioners were not entitled to intervention as a matter of right or to permissive intervention. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioners’ status as abutting property owners did not ipso facto entitle them to intervene in this case as a matter of right; (2) the hearing justice did not err in ruling that Petitioners’ interest in the superior court action was “contingent” upon the agreement between Plaintiff and the Town; and (3) the hearing justice did not err in considering Petitioners’ failure to appeal from an adverse Board decision previously filed in regard to the agreement as one factor weighing against intervention in the underlying action. http://j.st/4dHy View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

State v. Castagnola Court: Supreme Court of Ohio Citation: 2015-Ohio-1565 Opinion Date: April 28, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of retaliation, criminal damaging, vandalism, criminal trespass, possessing criminal tools, and ten counts of pandering. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress information found on his computer. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for concluding that evidence of criminal activity would be found there. The Supreme court reversed, holding (1) the search warrant was not supported not supported by probable cause, and (2) the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment requirement of particularity, thereby rendering invalid the search of Defendant’s computer. http://j.st/4dVo View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

United States v. Braxton Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Docket: 13-4491 Opinion Date: April 28, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. If convicted, Defendant faced a mandatory minimum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment. For several months, Defendant refused to plead guilty. The morning of his scheduled trial, however, Defendant accepted the government’s plea offer. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his plea had been involuntary because he had been pressured to plead guilty by the district court. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court committed plain error by impermissibly participating in the plea discussions. Remanded. http://j.st/4dVJ View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Luna v. Kernan Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 12-17332 Opinion Date: April 28, 2015 Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Appellant, a California state prisoner serving a life sentence for first-degree murder and attempted robbery, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court more than six years after the statutory filing deadline had passed. Appellant sought equitable tolling on the basis of his previous counsel’s handling of the case. The district court dismissed the habeas petition as time-barred, concluding that Appellant had not met his burden of proving entitlement to equitable tolling. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’s federal habeas petition, holding (1) this Court’s cases holding that egregious attorney misconduct may serve as a basis for equitable tolling, even if the misconduct falls short of abandonment, remain good law; and (2) the professional misconduct of Appellant’s former counsel constituted an extraordinary circumstance, and that misconduct prevented Appellant from filing his federal habeas petition on time. Remanded for a determination of whether Appellant diligently pursued his rights through the date of filing. http://j.st/4dV3 View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Rhodes v. State

...

[Message clipped]  View entire message