Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division affirming the judgment of Supreme Court denying Defendant's motion to suppress the firearm found in the vehicle he was driving, holding that the People sustained their burden of demonstrating that the inventory search protocol in this case met "the constitutional minimum."Two New York Police Department officers observed Defendant commit multiple traffic infractions while driving, stopped him, and arrested him for carrying a gravity knife in his pocket. At the precinct, the officers conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and recovered a firearm from the truck. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the firearm on the grounds that the NYPD's inventory search protocol was unconstitutional. The motion was denied, and Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession of a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to overcome the People's proof establishing a valid inventory search protocol. View "People v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Louisiana prisoner, sued the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole (“Parole Board”), seeking to have his parole reinstated on the grounds that its rescission just prior to its effective date violated his due process rights. The district court agreed with Plaintiff and ordered his release on parole within 30 days. On appeal, the Parole Board’s arguments include that there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained the State bases its argument on the premise that the Parole Board has unfettered discretion in all aspects of parole and release decisions. In support of its position, the State relied on an unpublished opinion, Burton v. Bd. of Parole. The court wrote that the opinion relies on Sinclair for its analysis, which the court has already rejected as inapplicable in this case. The court concluded the same now with regard to Burton because, there, the Louisiana First Circuit was considering an appeal from a prisoner’s denial of parole. The opinion discusses “expectancy of release,” while the question here is whether there are limits on the Parole Board to rescind parole after its formal grant but before the effective date of release. The court agreed and explained that Plaintiff’s parole was ostensibly rescinded because of an alleged problem with notice to a victim. He was notified of this reason on May 1, 2017, 10 days after his parole was rescinded. At the time, that was not a permissible reason to rescind his grant of parole. Therefore, Plaintiff’s parole was improperly rescinded. View "Galbraith v. Hooper" on Justia Law

Zakhari, in a program to become a cardiothoracic surgeon, engaged in online sexually explicit conversations with a profile (boredcrbgirl) created by a detective, claiming to be a 15-year-old girl. He received an image of an officer. Zakhari sent an Uber to take boredcrbgirl to his apartment for sex. The officer arrived at Zakhari’s residence in the Uber. Zakhari was arrested. The detective interrogated him after giving the Miranda warnings. Zakhari said, “I can answer some questions and then maybe call.” After responding to basic questions, he said: My sister’s an attorney. Asked if he wanted to call her, Zakhari said “yeah,” then paused. The detective interjected that such a call would end the questioning. Zakhari continued to answer questions and made incriminating statements.Zakhari was convicted of attempting to persuade a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), attempting to transmit an obscene image to a minor, section 1470, and attempting to produce child pornography sections 2251(a)(e). Zakhari unsuccessfully moved to suppress his statements. The court declined to strike the third charge on grounds of prosecutorial vindictiveness.The Sixth Circuit vacated the convictions. The suppression motion should have been granted. The factual context shows Zakhari had “lawyerly assistance” in mind in wanting to call his sister and the invocation was not ambiguous. The court abused its discretion in failing to require the government to substantiate its explanations concerning Count 3. Zakhari showed enough to presume vindictiveness. View "United States v. Zakhari" on Justia Law

Castro-White died from a drug overdose. Detective Sivert noticed that Castro-White’s phone had many missed calls from Karaplis, who implicated others but lied to Sivert by denying any involvement. Later, after admitting his involvement, Karaplis described the drug dealer, “Red,” Red’s car, Red’s phone number, and, using Google Maps, the specific home where he bought drugs from Red. Sivert traveled to this home and spotted a nearby car p that fit Karaplis’s description and was registered to “Russell Davis,” called “Big Red.” Karaplis identified Davis’s picture with “100 percent” confidence. Sivert had Karaplis set up a phone call with Davis to discuss Castro-White’s death. Sivert then obtained a warrant to search Davis’s Garden Avenue home. During the search, police found the phone and illegal drugs. Davis unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence and was given a mandatory life sentence.The Sixth Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing about what Sivert told the magistrate in person. Although the magistrate described his general practice, he lacked a “specific recollection” of Davis’s case. Sivert was “sure” that he had conveyed the many facts connecting Davis to the home. The court again denied Davis’s motion, despite finding that the affidavit failed to establish a probable-cause nexus between Davis and the home. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Sivert uncovered overwhelming evidence tying Davis to the home and the magistrate (not Sivert) bore any blame for failing to transcribe the additional oral testimony. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

This is an appeal from an order granting Defendants Seyfarth Shaw LLP (Seyfarth) and Colleen Regan a portion of the fees they requested pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.161 (the anti-SLAPP2 statute) and resulting judgment. The trial court awarded the fees without finally ruling on Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Plaintiffs immediately thereafter dismissed their complaint. Plaintiffs appealed the fee award on three general theories. Defendants cross-appealed. They argue the trial court should have awarded all the fees they requested, not just a portion of those fees, because all of Plaintiffs’ claims were based on conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, no exceptions applied, and their request was reasonable.   The Second Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court explained that it agreed with Defendants that their motion to strike was wholly meritorious and their fee request therefore should not have been reduced on the grounds that they would have prevailed only partially on their motion. The court disagreed with Plaintiffs that the trial court erred in the ways they claimed. The court explained that under Coltrain, Defendants prevailed because plaintiffs dismissed their suit and failed to show it was for reasons unrelated to lack of merit. Further, under Liu, Defendants were the prevailing party because their Anti-SLAPP motion was entirely meritorious. View "Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP" on Justia Law

A California court sentenced appellant Plaintiff to death. That same year, the California legislature codified a longstanding judicial rule guaranteeing the appointment of postconviction relief counsel to indigent prisoners who had been convicted and sentenced to death. Plaintiff requested the appointment of postconviction habeas counsel 26 years ago. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming that by failing to appoint counsel as promised and so preventing him from developing and prosecuting his state habeas corpus petition for over two decades, state officials are violating his procedural due process rights. He sought a declaration that state officials’ “failure to timely appoint counsel is in violation” of his due process rights. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that Plaintiff has standing because he has adequately shown that the declaratory relief he seeks would redress his injuries. The panel agreed with the district court that abstention under O’Shea v. Littleton, as to Plaintiff’s individual request for declaratory relief, was not appropriate. The panel held that California is under no federal constitutional obligation to appoint postconviction counsel for all indigent capital prisoners. But Plaintiff stated a viable due process claim by alleging that he has been deprived of a valuable property interest for over a quarter century. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. However, the panel held that Plaintiff’s complaint, as presently drafted, did not plausibly allege that the state has failed to adequately protect his liberty interest in petitioning for habeas corpus. View "STEPHEN REDD V. PATRICIA GUERRERO, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and finding no error in her criminal trial, holding that the search for evidence in this case violated the Fourth Amendment and that remand was required.Defendant was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine, possession with intent o manufacture, sell, or deliver methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the search and subsequent seizure of contraband did not comport with the Fourth Amendment; and (2) remand was required for the trial court to determine if the evidence should be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule. View "State v. Julius" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to suppress and convicting her of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia following a stipulated bench trial, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress.In denying Defendant's suppression motion, the trial court concluded that Defendant consented to a search of her vehicle, in which certain illegal items were found, and that a subsequent search of Defendant's person occurred incident to a valid arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) probable cause existed to arrest Defendant, and the subsequent search of her person occurred incident to a valid arrest; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Hammond" on Justia Law

Fieste was charged with threatening to assault and murder two federal judges, three former U.S. presidents, and the current President. She is currently incompetent to stand trial. Fieste's mental illness causes her to experience delusions. In custody, Fieste refused the antipsychotic medication that experts believe will restore her competence. The government obtained permission to involuntarily medicate her to render her competent to stand trial. The order was stayed pending appeal.The Seventh Circuit affirmed but remanded. Fieste’s pretrial detention is insufficient to overcome the government’s interest in prosecution although Fieste’s anticipated Guidelines range is 12-18 months and she will “likely face a sentence of time served” if convicted. The district court properly conducted a holistic assessment to conclude that the proposed treatment plan is substantially likely to render Fieste competent and that the side effects are substantially unlikely to significantly interfere with her ability to participate in the proceedings. The order permitted Fieste to be medicated with “long-acting injectable anti-psychotic medication, along with other medications” suggesting impermissible flexibility to administer unspecified medications. The district court must provide a dosage range based on the expert’s recommendation or some other appropriate evidence, whether directly in its order or by incorporating a sufficiently detailed treatment plan. View "United States v. Fieste" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment for Appellants on their claim brought under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, holding that the district court should not have dismissed the Title IX claim.MG, a minor child, alleged that he was harassed by fellow students while he was attending Brooke Charter School East Boston. Appellants - MG's mother, on behalf of herself, MG, and his four minor siblings - brought suit against the school asserting claims under Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Massachusetts state law. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the school on all claims. The First Circuit reversed the summary judgment on Appellants' Title IX claim and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the Title IX claim. View "Grace v. Board of Trustees" on Justia Law