Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

At issue was whether police officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff either for reports that he followed and harassed an attorney outside a courthouse or for Plaintiff’s refusal to identify himself during an investigatory stop. Defendants asserted that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on two grounds: (1) disturbing the peace under California Penal Code Section 415(2); and (2) obstructing an officer under California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1).   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Pasadena and Pasadena police officers in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that plaintiff was unlawfully arrested. Plaintiff first argued that, because he was arrested under California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1), that means it was disputed whether probable cause existed under Section 415(2). The panel disagreed, stating first that it was well-established that if the facts support probable cause for one offense, an arrest may be lawful even if the officer invoked, as the basis for the arrest, a different offense that lacked probable cause. Second, by the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, the officers learned enough facts to believe that Plaintiff had violated Section 415(2) and therefore had probable cause to make the arrest.   Having found no violation of the Fourth Amendment, there was no need to proceed to the second question of the qualified immunity analysis—whether the unlawfulness of the officer's conduct was not “clearly established.” Further, the panel held that no “controlling authority” or “robust consensus of cases” prohibited the officer from arresting Plaintiff under the facts confronting him View "JAVIER VANEGAS V. CITY OF PASADENA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court dismissing this action under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) but modified the judgment to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice, holding that the church-autonomy doctrine applied in this case and required its dismissal under Rule 12(B)(6).Plaintiff sued the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., asserting intentional interference with his contract and employment with Cathedral High School. The Archdiocese moved to the dismiss the complaint and invoked three defenses under the First Amendment, including the church-autonomy defense. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that dismissal under Rule 12(B)(1) was improper but that the church-autonomy doctrine barred Plaintiff's claims. View "Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the postconviction court partially granting Defendant's motion to vacate his first-degree murder convictions and sentences of death pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the postconviction court erred in granting a new penalty phase.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder. After waiving a penalty-phase jury, Defendant was sentenced to death. Defendant later filed a postconviction motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851. The postconviction court summarily denied Defendant's four purely legal claims but granted a new penalty phase, ruling that counsel was deficient in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence, which prejudiced Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant failed to establish deficient performance in any respect. View "State v. Mullens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder and carrying a dangerous weapon, holding that there was no deprivation of Defendant's due process right to a fair trial in this case.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor committed two instances of impropriety during the State's closing and rebuttal arguments, neither of which the defense objected to at trial. The Supreme Court upheld Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the first challenged argument did not exceed the bounds of permissible argument; and (2) as to the prosecutor's second challenged argument, even if the prosecutor's remarks were improper, there was no possibility that they deprived Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Hinds" on Justia Law

This case arises out of the shooting death of Plaintiff’s son. It required the Eleventh Circuit to decide whether video evidence creates a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether law enforcement officers used excessive force while trying to arrest Plaintiff’s son.Plaintiff filed claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against Officers Heinze, Hutchens, and Doyle, alleging that they violated her son’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force in attempting to arrest him. The three Task Force officers sought summary judgment on the Bivens claims. They argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they used a reasonable level of force under the circumstances   The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Officer Hutchens because he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court also correctly determined that Officers Doyle and Heinze were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions before the flashbang detonated. Accordingly, the court affirmed those portions of the district court’s order. The district court erred, however, by granting qualified immunity to Officers Doyle and Heinze for their actions after the flashbang exploded. The court therefore reversed the district court’s order insofar as it granted them summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that they employed excessive force after the flashbang detonated.  The court remanded for further proceedings consistent. View "Monteria Najuda Robinson v. William Sauls, et al" on Justia Law

The police officers at first complied with the requirement that a warrant includes a description of the “place to be searched,” by obtaining a warrant that listed a motel room suspected of being a hub for drug trafficking. The officers then decided to search the suspect’s home as well and asked the judge over the phone to expand the scope of the warrant to include the home. The judge agreed, but the officers did not physically amend the warrant.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The panel agreed with the district court that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant was facially defective. While a judge had orally approved the search of the home, the text of the Fourth Amendment still requires the warrant to specify the place to be searched. But the panel held that the district court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that the search would violate the Fourth Amendment. An officer could have believed—based on the lack of direct case law at the time—that he or she could search the home because the court had orally approved the search, even if the officer failed to make that change on the warrant. View "RICHARD MANRIQUEZ V. JOEL ENSLEY" on Justia Law

In 2014, Frein ambushed Pennsylvania State Troopers, killing one and injuring the other. Knowing he had used a .308-caliber rifle, police got a warrant to search the home that he shared with his parents and seize that type of rifle and ammunition. They did not find a .308-caliber rifle but found 46 guns belonging to the parents. The officers got a second warrant and seized them. Frein was eventually arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The government never used the parents' guns at trial, sentencing, or on appeal. The parents were not charged nor was it alleged that any of their guns were involved in the crime. The parents went to Pennsylvania state court and unsuccessfully asked to get their guns back, raising Second Amendment, takings, due process, excessive fines, and state-law objections.The parents then sued under 42 U.S.C.1983, arguing that by keeping the guns, the government is violating the Takings Clause and the Second Amendment’s right to “keep" arms and that the state’s procedure for letting them reclaim their property violated procedural due process. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit vacated in part. By keeping the parents’ guns after the criminal case ended, the officials took their property for public use without compensating them. Because the parents lawfully owned the guns, they also have a Second Amendment claim. However, they had a real chance to challenge the government’s actions and got procedural due process. View "Frein v. Pennsylvania State Police" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was prosecuted for knowing failure to report scrap metal transactions to the Texas Department of Public Safety, as required by state law. A jury acquitted him. Plaintiff then sued Houston Police Sergeant, claiming Defendant had provided false information that led to Plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution. The district court, concluding Defendant’s affidavit omitted material facts, denied him qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment for Defendant.   The court explained that contrary to the district court’s ruling, C&D’s computer problems were not material to whether probable cause existed to suspect Plaintiff had violated the reporting provisions. By his own admission, Plaintiff did not submit approximately twenty-four required reports to DPS. Plaintiff also knew Scrap Dragon was failing to send reports to DPS. The court explained that one could reasonably believe Plaintiff knew that continuing to use the flawed system would result in reporting failures. He had been warned about the system’s deficiencies months before his arrest and yet failed to use the statutory safe haven. So, even had Defendant mentioned the Scrap Dragon glitch, his affidavit still would have shown probable cause. Thus, Plaintiff failed to allege a Fourth Amendment violation. Further, even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation, the claimed right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. View "Laviage v. Fite" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for several drug-related offenses, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained during a search of Defendant's home.Officer Cody Scott was investigating a robbery when he detained Defendant for an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The officer asked Defendant if he would escort him inside the house, and Defendant agreed to the request. After Officer Scott observed possible narcotics in the residence he obtained a search warrant, the execution of which revealed various drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's protections under Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975), were violated in this case, and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained during the search. View "McCoy v. State" on Justia Law

Illinois, Cook County Health and Hospitals System, Chicago, and Naperville each issued an order, policy, or directive requiring certain employees to vaccinate or regularly test for COVID-19. Employees who failed to comply would be subject to disciplinary action, including possible termination. Three district judges denied motions for preliminary injunctions against those vaccine mandates.Consolidating the appeals, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rejecting a claim that the regulations violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to substantive due process by interfering with their rights to bodily autonomy and privacy, the court stated that the plaintiffs failed to provide facts sufficient to show that the challenged mandates abridge a fundamental right and did not provide a textual or historical argument for their constitutional interpretation. The district judge properly applied the rational basis standard. The plaintiffs established the efficacy of natural immunity and pointed out some uncertainties associated with the COVID-19 vaccines but did not establish that the governments lack a “reasonably conceivable state of facts” to support their policies. Without specifying the process that was due, how it was withheld, and evidence for the alleged protected interest, the plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims fail. The court also rejected free exercise claims and claims under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. View "Troogstad v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law