Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a law enforcement officer for violating her Fourth Amendments rights and for battery and false imprisonment under Minnesota law. The district court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified and official immunity. The court concluded that the officer's arrest of plaintiff and frisking her did not violate plaintiff's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The officer reasonably believed that plaintiff was at least moderately intoxicated, and the law at the time of plaintiff's arrest was not so clear that a reasonable officer would have known that he lacked probable cause to arrest a moderately intoxicated individual in lieu of leaving her alone on a public roadway at night. Further, the officer was entitled to official immunity on plaintiff's state-law battery and false imprisonment claims where a reasonable officer would not have known that arresting and frisking plaintiff would have violated her constitutional rights and the officer provided uncontroverted testimony that it was standard practice to transport intoxicated individuals to detox facilities. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Meehan v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the two officers who stripped searched him, alleging that the officers violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers based on qualified immunity where the strip search did not violate clearly established law at the time where a reasonable officer had a solid basis to believe that strip searching an arrestee was constitutional if there was reasonable suspicion that the detainee possessed contraband. In this case, plaintiff had recently admitted to smoking a bowl of marijuana so there was probable cause to believe that he had committed a controlled substance offense. View "Jacobson v. McCormick, et al." on Justia Law

The district court found that defendant's refusal to complete a Post-Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) violated a condition of his supervised release and sentenced him to seven days imprisonment with no term of supervised release to follow. Defendant appealed a week after he was released, contending that the Government violated his Fifth Amendment rights by forcing him to choose between incriminating himself and violating the conditions of his supervised release. The court dismissed the appeal as moot where the possibility that defendant could face an enhanced sentence for a future crime because of his supervised release violation does not establish a concrete and continuing injury because the court must assume that defendant will conduct his future activities in accordance with the law, and the "capable of repetition" exception does not apply. View "United States v. Stanko" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 100-month prison sentence for drug offenses for being too long and the Government appealed defendant's sentence for being too short. At issue was the ambiguity of the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a). The court concluded that the district court correctly applied the career offender enhancement; the "law of the case" doctrine was inapplicable in this case; the "rule of lenity" and policy considerations compelled the court to give defendant the benefit of his reading that the underlying sentence did not count separately from the non-qualifying offense by receiving any points under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c); and based on the analysis and all the facts, including defendant's entire criminal history, the district court did not err in imposing defendant's sentence. The court also concluded that the district court did not procedurally err in imposing an upward departure and variance and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and took into account defendant's underlying criminal history despite the ambiguity of the career offender provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of ten counts of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud for obtaining from his disabled cousin some $300,000 through a fraudulent scheme. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by applying a 12 level enhancement for the total loss amount; the district court did not commit procedural error by applying a 2 level vulnerable victim penalty; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; and the district court did not clearly err in imposing a $25,000 fine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Callaway" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the County and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983, after he was investigated and prosecuted for rape and murder. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred in granting defendants summary judgment. The court concluded that officers did not violate plaintiff's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where plaintiff failed to introduce sufficient evidence to raise a question of material fact as to whether the officers' conduct overbore plaintiff's will; the district court did not err by granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's Sixth Amendment claim where plaintiff failed to allege a violation of the right to counsel as no statements made by him without counsel present were introduced at trial; and the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim where Detective Bartlett's second probable cause statement would still have established probable cause if the omitted facts at issue had been included. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Dowell v. Lincoln County, Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of a drug offense, appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Plaintiff alleged that his counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress evidence and to seek a hearing based on alleged false statements by a police officer in a search warrant. Plaintiff contended that counsel should have moved for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, alleging that an officer stated falsely in his affidavit that petitioner's trash cans were located at the curb. The court concluded that counsel reasonably could have concluded that petitioner's allegations were insufficient to make the "substantial preliminary showing" that would trigger a Franks hearing. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing petitioner's section 2255 motion without a hearing because even accepting his allegations as true, counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Anderson, Jr. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty without a plea agreement to various drug and firearms offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error in applying a U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 departure, based on defendant's substantial assistance; there was no plain error when the government asked the district court to depart from the top of the advisory guidelines range and the government did not breach the cooperation agreement; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court carefully reviewed the sentencing record and carefully explained the sentence imposed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Deering, Sr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(b). Petitioner alleged that his attorney failed to file a requested notice of appeal. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by making a factual determination based on the relative credibility of counsel and petitioner without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether petitioner requested that counsel file an appeal. View "Franco v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit bank robbery, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the conspiracy and possession charges; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude Rule 404(b) evidence where he confessed to a prior armed bank robbery because it was probative of his intent and was not unduly prejudicial; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bassett" on Justia Law