Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Lucas was living at the Aranda, a residential hotel that provides supportive housing to formerly homeless individuals. The management company sought a workplace violence restraining order (Code Civ. Proc. 527.8) against Lucas with affidavits from four employees, alleging that Lucas had been very aggressive and confrontational toward other tenants and Aranda employees.The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and scheduled an evidentiary hearing. Lucas filed a response, denying all of the allegations. Both parties were represented by counsel at the hearing. Only a janitor (Yee) and Lucas provided testimony. The trial court questioned Yee, who affirmed that each of the allegations in his affidavit was correct. Lucas then testified, answering questions posed by his attorney. Lucas’ counsel requested an opportunity to cross-examine Yee and any of the other witnesses. The trial court stated it had no authority to allow cross-examination at such a hearing and granted a three-year workplace violence restraining order, based on “clear and convincing evidence” that had “been supported” and was “logical” and “believable.” The court of appeal reversed. The court’s failure here to allow Lucas to cross-examine Yee was contrary to section 527.8(j) and raised due process concerns. View "CSV Hospitality Management v. Lucas" on Justia Law

Rodriguez was arrested for domestic violence. He gave the police his brother’s name and date of birth. He was convicted and sentenced to probation. Although the court had learned Rodriguez’s real name, the judgment of conviction listed “Ely M. Martinez” as an alias for Rodriguez and listed Martinez’s date of birth. Rodriguez failed to report for probation. An arrest warrant was issued with the same information as the judgment. Years later, police arrested Martinez for an unrelated offense and booked him in the Milwaukee County Jail on a Wednesday. The next day, the district attorney decided not to press charges but a warrant check revealed the outstanding warrant for Rodriguez. Although jail officials made efforts to positively identify the detainee, he was not released until Tuesday morning.Martinez sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming due process violations. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Martinez’s detention was relatively brief and Martinez could not show that the defendants failed to investigate or ignored evidence of his innocence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the defendants could have improved aspects of their investigation, Martinez has not provided evidence showing that they were deliberately indifferent to his claims of mistaken identity. View "Martinez v. Santiago" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to modify his sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), which requires courts to modify sentences if certain sentencing provisions are found to be unconstitutional, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a sentencing modification.In 1999, Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a hard forty sentence. After a retrial in 2005, Appellant was again convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. Before sentencing, Appellant filed a motion arguing that the hard forty sentencing scheme violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The sentencing court denied the motion and again imposed a hard forty life sentence. In 2016, after the Supreme Court decided State v. Soto, 322 P.3d 344 (Kan. 2014), Appellant filed a motion for a sentencing modification under section 21-6628(c). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of all counts in a 41-count indictment charging him with sexual exploitation of a child and possessing, promoting, and distributing child pornography and sentencing him to a term of eighty years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were unavailing.On appeal, Defendant argued that the total length of his term-of-hears sentence violated the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's eighty-year sentence for dozens of child pornography offenses did not reach the level of gross disproportionality. View "United States v. Raiche" on Justia Law

Oakland County took title to the plaintiffs’ homes under the Michigan General Property Tax Act, which (after a redemption period) required the state court to enter a foreclosure judgment that vested “absolute title” to the property in the governmental entity upon payment of the amount of the tax delinquency or “its fair market value.” The entity could then sell it at a public auction. No matter what the sale price, the property’s former owner had no right to any of the proceeds.In February 2018, under the Act, Oakland County foreclosed on Hall’s home to collect a tax delinquency of $22,642; the County then conveyed the property to the City of Southfield for that price. Southfield conveyed the property for $1 to a for-profit entity, the Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, which later sold it for $308,000. Other plaintiffs had similar experiences.The plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit. The “Michigan statute is not only self-dealing: it is also an aberration from some 300 years of decisions.” The government may not decline to recognize long-established interests in property as a device to take them. The County took the property without just compensation. View "Hall v. Meisner" on Justia Law

S.B., age 13, lived with his mother in Michigan and visited relatives in Indiana. S.B.’s uncle, Hinkle, isolated and molested S.B. during two visits. By the time he was 17, S.B. used opiates and marijuana regularly and had experimented with heroin. During a family meeting to address his drug use, S.B. admitted his drug use and that Hinkle had molested him.Hinkle was charged with child molesting, sexual misconduct with a minor, and being a repeat sexual offender. Hinkle’s counsel opposed a motion to exclude evidence of S.B.’s drug use, arguing the evidence was relevant to show S.B.’s motive to fabricate allegations. The court ruled that it would not allow evidence of S.B.’s drug use except to show that it interfered with his ability to recall relevant events. At trial, Hinkle’s counsel unsuccessfully argued (outside the jury’s presence) that S.B. had falsely accused Hinkle to avoid facing consequences when his family confronted him for using narcotics. The jury heard evidence that S.B. “ha[d] a habit of playing family members against each other,” and was “really good at lying.” S.B. testified that he had convictions for credit card fraud, auto theft, and retail fraud.Hinkle was convicted and sentenced to 42 years in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his habeas petition. The Court of Appeals of Indiana did not unreasonably apply federal constitutional law in upholding the exclusion of evidence of S.B.’s drug use. View "Hinkle v. Neal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court approved of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal affirming Defendant's conviction for sexual battery in violation of Fla. Stat. 794.011(5)(b), holding that subsection 5(b) is not facially unconstitutional because it does not remove the State's burden to prove the defendant's general intent to engage in the act that constitutes the offense under the statute.On appeal, Defendant argued that subsection 5(b) was facially unconstitutional or must be read to include a requirement that the State prove that a criminal defendant knew or should have known the victim did not consent to sexual intercourse. The First District affirmed, disagreeing with Defendant that section 794.011(5)(b) was unconstitutional because it does not require the State to prove a defendant's mens rea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Legislature's reach did not approach the extent of its constitutional grasp where the statute makes sexual battery a crime of general intent not a strict liability offense. View "Statler v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals determining that the evidence should have been suppressed in the underlying criminal case based on a statutory violation, holding that there was no violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in this case.While Defendant was serving community control, his probation officer conducted a random home-check on Defendant, searched his cell phone, and discovered child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress the uncovered evidence on the grounds that the suspicion-less search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the suppression motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the search violated Ohio Rev Code 2951.02(A)'s requirement that a probation officer may conduct a search only when there are "reasonable grounds to believe" that a probationer is violating the law or conditions of control. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the probation officer exceeded the scope of her authority when she searched Defendant's cell phone without reasonable grounds to believe that he had violated the law or the conditions of probation; and (2) because there was no constitutional violation, there was no basis to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the search. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff fled from three officers investigating drug activity. An officer chased Plaintiff and commanded him to stop. Eventually, Plaintiff stopped and turned suddenly toward the officer. The officer feared Plaintiff was reaching for a weapon, so he tased him. Plaintiff and his grandmother sued Harris County and the officer. The district court dismissed the Monell claim against Harris County for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the officer based on qualified immunity.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that to establish Monell liability on a failure-to-train theory, a plaintiff must prove that: “(1) the city failed to train or supervise the officers involved; (2) there is a causal connection between the alleged failure to supervise or train and the alleged violation of the plaintiff’s rights; and (3) the failure to train or supervise constituted deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”   Here, first, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the County failed to train the officers involved on the constitutional use of tasers. Second, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a causal connection between any failure to train officers and the alleged violation here. Third, has not plausibly alleged that any failure to train constituted deliberate indifference. The court further explained that Plaintiff concededly ran from police, then stopped suddenly and turned toward the pursuing officer. Thus, neither Newman nor Darden involves materially similar facts and hence cannot clearly establish the law. View "Henderson v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Appellants distribute food to homeless people in the City of St. Louis and wish to continue doing so as part of their charitable and religious practice a St. Louis police officer observed Appellants distributing bologna sandwiches and issued each a citation for violating a city ordinance requiring a permit for the distribution of “potentially dangerous food.”Appellants filed this suit, claiming that the City’s enforcement of the ordinance violated their federal and state constitutional rights and Missouri statutes. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the provisions ensure that health inspectors have an opportunity to determine whether the temporary food establishment is complying with the Ordinance. When operating a temporary food establishment, Appellants would also have to ensure: that they take steps to prevent contamination of any ice served to consumers; that tableware provided to consumers is only in single-service and single-use articles; that any equipment is located and installed in a way that avoids food contamination and to facilitate cleaning; that food-contact surfaces are protected from consumer contamination; and that they have water available for cleaning utensils and equipment and to make convenient handwashing facilities available for any employees. Without these provisions regarding the distribution of potentially hazardous food to the public, the City’s goal of preventing foodborne illness would be achieved less effectively. Moreover, the court noted that nothing about the City’s enforcement of the Ordinance against Appellants prevents them from conveying their religious message in other ways. View "Raymond Redlich v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law