Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order of the trial denying Defendant's motion to vacate global positioning system (GPS) monitoring as a condition of his probation, holding that the Commonwealth failed to establish how the imposition of GPS monitoring would further its interest in enforcing the court-ordered exclusion zone surrounding the victim's home.Defendant was convicted on two indictments charging him with rape and sentenced to a term of incarceration followed by probation. As a condition of probation, the judge ordered Defendant to submit to GPS monitoring pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 47. Defendant moved to vacate the condition of GPS monitoring on the ground that it constituted an unreasonable search. The trial judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of establishing the constitutionality of the warrantless search. View "Commonwealth v. Roderick" on Justia Law

Officer Denton Scherman of the Edmond, Oklahoma Police Department shot an unarmed assailant, Isaiah Lewis, four times. Lewis died as a result of his wounds. Plaintiffs, the representatives of Lewis’s estate, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendant Scherman used excessive force against the decedent in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Scherman appealed the district court’s decision denying his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. After review, the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding its jurisdiction was limited because at this intermediate stage of the litigation, and controlling precedent generally precluded the Court from reviewing a district court’s factual findings if those findings have (as they did here) at least minimal support in the record. In such case, “[t]hose facts explicitly found by the district court, combined with those that it likely assumed, . . . form the universe of facts upon which we base our legal review of whether [a] defendant[] [is] entitled to qualified immunity.” The Tenth Circuit's review was de novo; Defendant Scherman did not dispute the facts recited by the district court, when viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, sufficed to show a violation of the decedent’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. What Scherman did dispute was the district court’s holding that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident such “that every reasonable [officer] would have understood” Scherman’s actions, given the facts knowable to him, violated decedent’s constitutional right. The Tenth Circuit concluded Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing the law was clearly established such “that every reasonable [officer] would have understood” that the force Scherman used against Lewis was excessive under the facts presented at trial. The judgment of the district court denying Defendant Scherman qualified immunity is reversed and this case is remanded for entry of judgment in his favor. View "Lewis, et al. v. City of Edmond, et al." on Justia Law

Mwangangi provided roadside assistance around Indianapolis. He set out to jumpstart a car in his used Crown Victoria and activated clear strobe lights on the outside of his car. A driver that Mwangangi passed on the highway twice called 911 to report him as a police impersonator. Shortly after Mwangangi helped the stranded motorist, he found himself at a gas station surrounded by seven police officers. Mwangangi was ordered from his car, handcuffed, patted down twice, and arrested for police impersonation—charges that were not dropped until two years later, when everyone realized he had been telling the truth about his roadside assistance job.The district court entered summary judgment for Mwangangi on many of his Fourth Amendment-based claims, denying some of the police officers the protection of qualified immunity. The court found for the city and officers on other claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. Officer Nielsen had a “particularized and objective basis” to justify an investigatory Terry stop in the gas station and had the authority to ask Mwangangi to step out of his car to answer questions. Because of the context of the potential crime and surrounding circumstances, Officer Root’s decision to pat Mwangangi down did not amount to a constitutional violation. Officer Noland waived any challenge to the determination that his second pat down violated Mwangangi’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court stated that claims against officers for “bystander liability” required further factual development. View "Mwangangi v. Nielsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court ordering forfeiture of Appellant's 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, holding that there was no equal protection violation and that, as applied to Appellant, the vehicle forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.Appellant entered a plea of no contest to one charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OVI). Because Appellant had two prior OVI convictions within the preceding ten years, his vehicle was seized pending the completion of the proceedings. After a forfeiture hearing held pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 4503.234 the trial court ordered Appellant to forfeit his vehicle. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory classification contained in Ohio Rev. Code 4511.19(G)(1)(c)(v) does not violate constitutional equal protection guarantees; and (2) the forfeiture of Appellant's vehicle was not grossly disproportional and was thus not unconstitutional as applied to Appellant. View "State v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual intercourse without consent, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence related to Defendant's accuser's pending DUI charge in another county; (2) the district court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him or present his defense by limiting cross-examination of Defendant's accuser regarding alleged leniency she may have received related to her pending DUI case in return for her testimony against Defendant; and (3) the chief prosecutor’s prior representation of Defendant did not deprive the entire Lake County Attorney’s Office of authority to prosecute Defendant. View "State v. James" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered in the trial court upon his conditional guilty plea to drug-related offenses and endangering the welfare of a child, holding that the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress.Based on evidence discovered during the stop of a Honda Civic the grand jury indicted Defendant on the four counts for which he was later convicted. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, arguing that the police officer lacked a clearly articulated and objectively reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant entered conditional guilty pleas on all counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the vehicle stop was constitutionally permissible, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Lovell" on Justia Law

At a barbecue at Brown's home. K.M. and Brown became inebriated and had a physical altercation. K.M.’s wife, Rebecca, got K.M. to his car, in front of Brown’s house. According to Rebecca, K.M. was standing in the street when Brown approached and swung a knife at K.M.. K.M. swung back with a piece of wood that Brown had thrown at K.M. earlier. Brown claims K.M. came up the driveway toward him holding pieces of wood and raised his hands as if to strike Brown, so Brown picked up a knife from the grill and swung it. He did not realize he had stabbed K.M. until K.M. collapsed in the street. Brown did not call 911 but made statements such as “that will teach him.” In recorded telephone calls from the jail, Brown made statements attributing the stabbing to anger rather than fear. K.M.’was struck three times; the knife’s blade penetrated his skull and passed through the brain. K.M. survived but has cognitive and physical impairments and will require care for the remainder of his life.Brown was convicted of first-degree reckless injury. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Brown’s habeas petition. Even if he was deprived of due process when the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the “castle doctrine” as part of his self-defense theory, any error was harmless. It is unlikely that a properly instructed jury would have accepted Brown’s factual account. View "Brown v. Eplett" on Justia Law

Barney’s wife got a restraining order against him and temporary custody of their son. She was subsequently found dead near their son’s daycare, her throat cut open. Barney was charged with murder. Barney had a rocky relationship with his defense lawyer, Riley, and claims that he told Riley of his plan to represent himself on July 14, 2005, then wrote the judge a letter. Though Barney had dated the letter July 21, the judge did not get it until August 10, the day before the trial began. In court, the judge held up the letter, explained that he had not read it, and handed it to Riley. Riley promised Barney that he would “deal with” Barney’s request. He never did.After a two-week trial, Barney was convicted of first-degree murder. His conviction was affirmed. In habeas proceedings, the New Jersey Superior Court found that Barney did not “clearly and unequivocally” tell the court or Riley that he wanted to represent himself. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief. The state court ruling was not “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court precedent, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Barney did not establish prejudice in his ineffective assistance claim; the trial court did not get Barney’s request until the eve of jury selection. View "Barney v. Administrator New Jersey State Prisons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of murder and criminal possession of a firearm in connection with the death of his wife, holding that the prosecutor improperly commented on Defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent following his arrest and advisement of rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes of conviction and that the prosecutor improperly commented on his post-Miranda silence. The Supreme Court reversed his convictions, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; but (2) the prosecutor's remarks impermissibly used Defendant's post-Miranda silence against him, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), rendering the trial "fundamentally unfair," and the error was not harmless. View "State v. Patrick M." on Justia Law

In 2011 Sanders drove a truck into his sister and her boyfriend. He was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide. Sanders suffered from schizophrenia and was not taking his medication. Sanders was initially found to lack the capacity to proceed or to assist in his defense. Sanders received treatment, was reevaluated, and a second report suggested he was “malingering.” Sanders entered into a plea agreement, stating he had read and understood the criminal complaint and understood the consequences of pleading guilty. Sanders’s cognitive abilities and educational level were considered, as was whether Sanders could have pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.The day after receiving a seven-year sentence, Sanders gave notice of his intent to pursue postconviction relief and was appointed new counsel. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected that attorney’s no-merit report but dismissed the appeal, reasoning that Sanders relied on facts outside the record. On remand, Sanders moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, asserting that he did not understand the offenses to which he pleaded and that his attorney was ineffective. The court denied both motions, making extensive findings that Sanders’s trial counsel was credible and Sanders was generally not credible but was intelligent and understood the proceedings and issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Sanders’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is procedurally defaulted. It plainly appears from Sanders’s petition and attached exhibits that he is not entitled to relief on his claim that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary. View "Sanders v. Radtke" on Justia Law