Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Jason Pederson, was found guilty of one count of terrorizing following a jury trial. The charge was based on two emails Pederson sent to her former employer, threatening to retrieve damages through the taking of physical assets and warning employees to stay out of the way to avoid unnecessary deaths. These emails were sent after Pederson had filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. After receiving the emails, the employer contacted law enforcement, leading to Pederson's arrest.The case was first heard in the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District. During the trial, Pederson, who represented herself, argued that the State had violated her rights under Brady v. Maryland by failing to provide her with a recording of a conversation she had with Officer Tanner Anderson, who had informed her that she was trespassed from her former employer's property. The State argued that the recording was not relevant to the terrorizing charge and had been filed under a civil trespass file, not the criminal case. The court ruled that the State's failure to disclose the recording was not intentional and that the State must provide it before Officer Anderson was called as a witness.The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Pederson did not establish a Brady violation. The court found that although the State had possessed the recording and did not disclose it to Pederson, Pederson had not demonstrated that the recording was favorable to her or plainly exculpatory. The court also concluded that Pederson did not preserve the issue of insufficient evidence because she failed to move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 and did not argue obvious error. View "State v. Pederson" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident where Colorado Springs Police Officers Robert McCafferty and Christopher Pryor responded to a 911-call placed by Sasha Cronick reporting a drug overdose. During the incident, Officer Pryor questioned Cronick, which escalated into an argument, leading to her arrest for failure to desist and disperse in violation of Colorado Springs Code § 9.2.103. Cronick filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officers violated her constitutional rights. The officers asserted qualified immunity, but the district court denied their claim.The district court found several disputes of fact, including whether Officer Pryor issued an order for Cronick to leave the scene, whether Cronick was obstructing the scene, and whether Officer Pryor grabbed Cronick's arm to escort her away or after she had already turned to walk away. The court concluded that these disputes prevented it from finding that the officers had probable cause to arrest Cronick.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that a reasonable officer under these circumstances would not have arguable probable cause to arrest Cronick for failure to desist or disperse. The court also found that the officers did not have probable cause to conduct a search incident to arrest. The officers failed to articulate specific facts that led them to believe Cronick posed a threat and offered nothing beyond conclusory references to safety. Therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated Cronick's clearly established constitutional rights. View "Cronick v. Pryor" on Justia Law

Two former police officers, John Powell and Brian Scott, were indicted for violating their oaths of office under OCGA § 16-10-1. The indictment alleged that they failed to uphold the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by Brady v. Maryland by not conducting investigations into allegations of police misconduct. The officers filed a general demurrer, arguing that the indictment failed to adequately charge them with any offense against the laws of Georgia, and that the oath-of-office statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of the case. The trial court denied the demurrer, concluding that the allegations would constitute conduct violative of the oaths of office taken by the officers.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the trial court's ruling on the general demurrer de novo. The court agreed with the officers that the trial court's ruling regarding the sufficiency of the indictment was erroneous, and their general demurrers should have been granted. The court found that the indictment alleged that the officers committed the crimes in a specific way that was legally impossible. The court concluded that the indictment against the officers could not withstand a general demurrer and reversed the trial court's denial of the general demurrers to the indictment. The court did not reach the officers' constitutional challenge or the speedy-trial issue also before them on appeal. View "POWELL v. STATE" on Justia Law

The case involves David Thurston, a registered sex offender, who moved to Avery County, North Carolina, where Kevin Frye served as Sheriff and Lee Buchanan was the Deputy in charge of sex-offender registrations. Thurston informed Sheriff Frye that he had been invited to his nephew’s wedding in Spokane, Washington, and sought advice on how to comply with the law and asked for permission to attend the wedding. Sheriff Frye gave Thurston permission to travel and instructed him to email a copy of his Washington visitor-registration form within ten days of his arrival. However, while Thurston was away, the Sheriff’s Office mailed his verification form. Thurston contacted Sheriff Frye for guidance, but Sheriff Frye never responded. Deputy Buchanan began investigating Thurston and obtained a warrant alleging three different criminal violations. Thurston was arrested upon his return to North Carolina.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied the officers' motion for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their arrest of Thurston did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The officers appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Thurston’s arrest was unconstitutional and that the officers failed to prove that they acted objectively reasonably in seeking Thurston’s arrest warrant. The court also concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because Thurston’s right to be free from unlawful arrest was clearly established. View "Thurston v. Frye" on Justia Law

The case involves Victor Hill, the former Sheriff of Clayton County, Georgia, who was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for using his position to deprive detainees in his custody of their constitutional rights. Hill ordered individual detainees, who were neither violent nor uncontrollable, into a restraint chair for at least four hours, with their hands cuffed behind their backs and without bathroom breaks. Each detainee suffered injuries, such as “open and bleeding” wounds, lasting scars, or nerve damage.Hill was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that he lacked fair warning that his conduct was unconstitutional, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the district court improperly handled allegations of juror misconduct.The Eleventh Circuit rejected Hill's arguments and affirmed his conviction. The court found that case law provided Hill with fair warning that his actions violated constitutional rights. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Hill's conduct had no legitimate nonpunitive purpose, was willful, and caused the detainees’ injuries. Lastly, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in investigating and responding to alleged juror misconduct. View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

The case revolves around William P. Spangler, who was initially convicted of second-degree murder for his role in the shooting death of Faustino Martinez. After serving a prison term longer than his sentence, Spangler was retried and convicted of a lesser charge, involuntary manslaughter. He then sought compensation for the extra time he spent in prison.Spangler's initial conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals. However, he later filed a motion arguing that he received constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel. The district court agreed, finding that Spangler's trial counsel failed to investigate his mental health status and its effect on his state of mind when he shot Martinez. This failure was deemed prejudicial to Spangler, and a new trial was ordered. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.In the retrial, Spangler was again convicted, but this time of involuntary manslaughter rather than second-degree murder. He was released based on time served, having served about four-and-a-half years beyond the sentence imposed for his involuntary manslaughter conviction. Spangler then filed a civil action seeking compensation for the time he spent in prison beyond his involuntary manslaughter sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the district court's decision that Spangler's own conduct caused or brought about his conviction, thus precluding any recovery. The court interpreted the statute to reflect the Legislature's intent to impose a common-sense limitation: Only someone innocent of the criminal conduct supporting the underlying conviction may pursue a claim for damages. Therefore, a claimant like Spangler, who stands convicted of a lesser included offense based on the same charge as a previous conviction, is not eligible to seek relief. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Spangler" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the petitioner, Tom Nichols, also known as Nikki, who is currently serving a prison sentence for sex crimes against children. Nikki, a transgender woman in the process of transitioning, filed a petition for a sealed-record name change, arguing that an open-record proceeding could jeopardize her safety due to her gender identity.The District Court of the Third Judicial District initially denied Nikki's petition. The court's decision was based on the fact that Nikki failed to demonstrate probable cause that her safety was at risk, a requirement under Section 27-31-201, MCA, for a petition to proceed on a sealed-record basis. The court also had to be satisfied that the petitioner was not attempting to avoid debt or hide a criminal record.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court noted that district courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a petition for a sealed-record name change. The Supreme Court would only reverse a district court decision if it was arbitrary or exceeded the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. In this case, the Supreme Court found that Nikki failed to provide specific instances of abuse or explain why an open-record proceeding would change her circumstances at the Montana State Prison. Furthermore, Nikki did not provide any support for the alleged risk of harm from members of the public. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the evidence was insufficient to support Nikki’s petition. View "In re Name Change of Nichols" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Victor Ramirez, who was pulled over by police officers for traffic violations. Recognizing Ramirez as a gang member from a previous encounter, one of the officers asked him about his parole status. Ramirez confirmed he was on parole for a firearm-related offense. During the stop, the officers discovered a loaded firearm in Ramirez's car. Ramirez was subsequently indicted for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon.Ramirez moved to suppress the gun and ammunition, arguing that the officers unreasonably prolonged the stop by asking about his parole status, which he claimed was unrelated to the traffic stop. The district court denied Ramirez's motion to suppress, and Ramirez pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon, reserving his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that asking about parole status during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment as it reasonably relates to the officer's safety and imposes a negligible burden. The court also remanded the case in part so that the district court could correct the written judgment to conform it to the oral pronouncement of sentence. View "United States V. Ramirez" on Justia Law

The case involves an action filed by Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Lawrence Haskell against Jilma Meneses, the secretary of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). The Prosecutor sought a writ of mandamus directing Meneses to comply with statutory duties under chapter 10.77 RCW and timely provide competency services in criminal proceedings. The case specifically concerned three categories of Spokane County defendants in felony criminal proceedings ordered to receive competency services from DSHS.Previously, a class action was filed in federal court, challenging DSHS's delays in providing competency services to criminal defendants in pretrial custody. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held these delays violated the class members’ due process rights and issued a permanent injunction against DSHS. The injunction set strict time limits for providing competency services to defendants in pretrial custody, appointed a special court monitor, and began oversight of DSHS’s efforts to comply with the injunction.In the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, DSHS argued that the court must dismiss the petition for lack of original jurisdiction because the secretary is not a state officer within the meaning of the state constitution. The court agreed with DSHS, concluding that the secretary is not a state officer. The court reasoned that a state officer must be elected, subject to impeachment, and granted a State sovereign power, none of which applied to the secretary. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus. View "Spokane County v. Meneses" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Israel Marcial Uriostegui, who was convicted of first-degree residential burglary by a jury. Uriostegui appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his objection under section 231.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section aims to prevent the improper removal of jurors based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, gender, or membership in another protected group. Uriostegui's objection was based on the prosecutor's peremptory challenge against a prospective juror, T.N., who appeared to be Hispanic.Previously, the trial court had asked T.N. for basic information during voir dire. T.N. disclosed her employment at Taco Bell, her current unemployment due to an injury, and her lack of prior jury service. She also revealed that two of her family members had been convicted of a crime, but she was not close to them. When the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against T.N., Uriostegui's counsel objected, arguing that the basis for excusing T.N. was presumptively invalid under section 231.7. The prosecutor justified the challenge by citing T.N.'s "lack of life experience," her unemployment, and her demeanor. The trial court denied Uriostegui's objection, finding no substantial likelihood that T.N.'s perceived membership in a protected class was a factor in the peremptory challenge.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District, Uriostegui contended that the trial court erred in denying his objection under section 231.7. The court agreed with Uriostegui, stating that the prosecutor's reasons for excusing T.N. were presumptively invalid under section 231.7. The court found that the prosecutor's reasons and the trial court's findings did not overcome the presumption of invalidity. The court concluded that the trial court erred in denying Uriostegui's objection under section 231.7. As a result, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. View "People v. Uriostegui" on Justia Law