Criminal Law Library Blog

To view these cases distributed by Findlaw.com you must first sign in to Findlaw.com. "Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 16, 2008
Pineda v. Watts, No. 07-2462
In an action brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that the defendants' failure to supervise resulted in arrests without probable cause, illegal warrantless searches, and use of excessive force, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to establish that the actions of defendants amounted to supervisory encouragement, condonation or acquiescence, or gross negligence amounting to deliberate indifference

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 17, 2008
Grant v. US Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 05-4614
The circuit court rejects a constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. section 1432(a) (1994), which provided that an alien born out of wedlock could obtain derivative citizenship based on the naturalization of his or her mother before the alien turned eighteen but could not obtain derivative citizenship based on the naturalization of his or her father before the alien turned eighteen unless paternity had been established by legitimation.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 18, 2008
In re Sims, No. 06-0644
In an inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force, inmate's petition for writ of mandamus challenging an order requiring him to produce his mental health records is granted because: 1) a plaintiff does not forfeit the psychotherapist-patient privilege merely by asserting a claim for injuries that do not include emotional damage, or by stating that he suffers from depression or anxiety for which he does not seek damages; 2) a plaintiff may withdraw or formally abandon all claims for emotional damages to avoid forfeiting the psychotherapist-patient privilege; and 3) a party's psychotherapist-patient privilege is not overcome when his mental state is put in issue only by another party.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 15, 2008
Startzell v. Philadelphia, No. 07-1461
In an action stemming from the arrest of plaintiffs-protestors at a street festival in Philadelphia, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant-event organizer had a First Amendment right to exclude plaintiffs-Repent America from its permitted event, despite the event's being held on public streets and sidewalks; 2) city properly imposed narrowly-tailored restrictions upon plaintiff's protest in a content-neutral manner; 3) plaintiffs had no valid equal-protection claim as to disparate police treatment of their protest and defendants' efforts to drown out that protest because the parties could not be regarded as similarly situated; 4) plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when they were arrested for disorderly conduct, even though they were engaged in protected speech at the time; 5) a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim failed as there was no underlying breach of plaintiffs' constitutional rights; 6) there was no evidence to support plaintiffs'! conspiracy claim.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 18, 2008
US v. Stevens, No. 05-2497
Conviction for selling depictions of animal cruelty is vacated, and the statute itself, 18 U.S.C. section 48, is declared unconstitutional, where: 1) the criminalization of depictions of animal cruelty, rather than of the acts of cruelty themselves, is a content-based regulation on speech; 2) the speech in question does not constitute a new category of unprotected speech; and 3) the government has not shown that the statute is narrowly tailored, using the least restrictive means, to achieve an important governmental interest.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 15, 2008
Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, No. 06-7427
In a closely divided opinion, denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging petitioner's military detention as an enemy combatant is reversed where: 1) Congress has empowered the President to hold the petitioner as an enemy combatant if the allegations against him are true; nevertheless, 2) assuming Congress has empowered the President to detain petitioner as an enemy combatant provided its allegations against him are true, petitioner has not been afforded sufficient process to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 14, 2008
James v. Texas Collin County, No. 07-40566
In a suit alleging violations of plaintiff's First Amendment rights arising from the termination of his employment after he lost his bid to become the Republican nominee for a county commissioner, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence to find that plaintiff was terminated by the county commissioners or by his supervisor in their individual capacities; 2) plaintiff presented no evidence that he was terminated for any First Amendment related reason other than for campaigning on county property; and 3) county's policies prohibiting political campaigning by their employees while working and under other circumstances is viewpoint neutral and limited in scope. ..

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 18, 2008
LA ex rel Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 08-30465
In a parens patriae action alleging violations of Louisiana's antitrust laws, denial of plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court after removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act is affirmed where: 1) the Louisiana attorney general has power to bring parens patriae antitrust actions and possesses broad powers to vindicate the interests of the state; 2) the policyholders and not the state are the real parties in interest due to the state's request for treble damages; and 3) plaintiff waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 17, 2008
Burlison v. US, No. 06-6369
Judgments finding that plaintiffs-landowners have an easement by reservation over a field-access road crossing a national wildlife refuge, and that the government lacks power under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act to regulate that easement, are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) state law on parol evidence does not prevent a court from considering letters expressing prior deedholders' intent to reserve an express easement over the road, 2) the Property Clause gives Congress the power to regulate privately held easements over federal land, and 3) the Refuge Act properly grants the Fish and Wildlife Service the power to impose reasonable regulations on the use of the easement. .

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 16, 2008
Davis v. Cook County, No. 06-1534
In a nurse's suit against county employer alleging, inter alia, that defendants violated her First Amendment rights and defamed her in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law, summary judgment and dismissal rulings against plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) the speech upon which plaintiff based her case was made pursuant to her duties as a public employee, and thus was not constitutionally protected; and 2) a decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim was not an abuse of discretion. ..

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 17, 2008
Corey H. v. Bd. of Educ.of the City of Chicago, No. 07-2084
In the context of enforcing a consent decree governing the placement of disabled students in Chicago schools, a district court order is not ripe for review where defendant-school board has not shown that the order will necessarily result in harm. .

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 15, 2008
US v. Benitez, No. 06-3763
A conviction and sentence for possession and conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the legality and length of a stop; 2) the lack of consent to a search because it was not given knowingly and voluntarily; 3) the admissibility of evidence of a prior conviction for cocaine possession; 4) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction; and 5) the constitutionality of section 3E1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. .

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 16, 2008
Howell v. Polk, No. 06-16418
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging, inter alia, that police unconstitutionally executed a knock-and-announce search warrant by failing to wait long enough for plaintiffs to open the door before breaking it down, judgment pursuant to a jury verdict for defendants is affirmed where: 1) there was no error in submitting to the jury the issue of whether execution of the search warrant was reasonable given the totality of the circumstances; and 2) the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs summary judgment on their claim of unlawful entry.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 15, 2008
Amundsen v. Jones, No. 06-4310
In an action brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, denial of summary judgment for defendant based on qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) there was jurisdiction to consider the appeal; 2) plaintiff's erratic driving created reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence and entitled the defendant to conduct a standard roadside sobriety test; and 3) plaintiff consented to toxicology exams conducted after the stop.

Supreme Court of California, July 14, 2008
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, No. S136468
County agency's imposition of a countywide assessment to fund a program to acquire, improve, and maintain open space lands is subject to independent review by court under Proposition 218, and the assessment is invalid because it does not comply with the special benefit and proportionality requirements for such assessments under article XIII D of the California Constitution