Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

On October, 20, 2014, at approximately 7:43 p.m., Denver police officers were patrolling West 10th Avenue near its intersection with Mariposa Street in Denver, in a marked police vehicle. It was dark out and the intersection was unlit. The two officers observed defendant-appellee Phillip Hernandez walking next to a fenced construction site. The officers considered this part of town “to be a high-crime area due to its proximity to the Lincoln Park housing project and the frequency of theft and drug dealing occurring therein.” Officer Morghem asked Hernandez where he was coming from and what he was doing, to which Hernandez replied that he was coming from his grandmother’s house and was “just trying to go home.” Officer Morghem pressed Hernandez for his grandmother’s address, but Hernandez could not remember it. Up to this point, the entire conversation took place while Hernandez was walking, with the two officers driving close beside him. Officer Walton noted in the police report he filed the next day that Hernandez “tried not to stop and talk to us.” Hernandez eventually did stop, and the officers were able to talk to him. Hernandez provided his real name but a false birth date. Although Officer Morghem did not have Hernandez’s correct date of birth, he was able to pull up additional information on Hernandez via the in-car computer, finding Hernandez’s mug shot and determined that he had an active warrant for a parole violation. Hernandez was arrested on the active warrant, and ultimately indicted and convicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence retrieved after his encounter with the officers, claiming the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted the motion. The government appealed, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from an officer-involved shooting in the early morning hours of September 19, 2011. At approximately 3:50 a.m., plaintiff Matthew Carabajal was driving a vehicle containing three other individuals, including his infant son V.M.C., when he noticed that he was being followed by a police vehicle with its lights and siren activated. Plaintiff drove for several blocks. Other officers were notified and reported to the scene. Plaintiff pulled over, the officers exited their police cars, and one officer stepped in front of plaintiff’s vehicle. Soon thereafter, plaintiff’s vehicle began to move forward. The officer fired two rounds from his shotgun at plaintiff, severely injuring him. At that time, V.M.C. was still in the vehicle, secured in a car seat behind the front passenger. V.M.C., through Mathew and V.M.C.’s mother, Arianna Martinez, appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Officers Joshua Thornton and Michael Sutton, and Defendant-Appellee City of Cheyenne (“the City”). On appeal, plaintiffs challenged: (1) the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim of unlawful seizure of V.M.C. by Officer Thornton when he shot into the vehicle that V.M.C. occupied; (2) the grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers based upon qualified immunity as to Carabajal’s excessive force claims; and (3) the district court’s initial dismissal of, and later grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on, Plaintiffs’ claims of negligent hiring of Officer Thornton. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Carabajal v. City of Cheyenne" on Justia Law

This case began with plaintiff Clyde Rife, sitting on a motorcycle next to a road, unable to recall the date, the time, or even what he had been doing in a town he had just visited. When approached by a state trooper, Rife said that he was fine. Nonetheless, the trooper questioned Rife and concluded that he was intoxicated on pain medication and had been in a motorcycle accident. These conclusions led the trooper to arrest Rife for public intoxication. After the arrest, the trooper drove Rife to jail. Rife groaned and complained of pain in his heart and chest. Upon arriving at the jail, Rife was put in a holding cell. The scene was observed by a cellmate, who said that Rife had repeatedly complained about pain. Nonetheless, Rife was not provided medical attention. The arrest itself and the later lack of medical care led Rife to sue: (1) the trooper, two jail officials, and the entity operating the jail for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; and (2) the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety for negligent failure to provide medical care. As a threshold question, the Tenth Circuit concluded probable cause existed to arrest Rife. With regard to his other claims, the Court found that the district court thought no one could reasonably infer either deliberate indifference or negligence. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, concluding that both could have been reasonably inferred from the evidence. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rife v. McCurtain County Jail Trust" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Thornton appealed his seventy-eight month prison sentence. The issue this case presented was whether the district court committed procedural error by basing the length of Thornton’s sentence, in part, on the treatment and vocational services he would receive in jail. Federal judges may not use imprisonment as a means to promote defendants’ correction or rehabilitation. In this case, the district court calculated the advisory prison range under the Sentencing Guidelines and Thornton moved for a downward variance. The court denied that request, offering several reasons not to impose a below-guidelines sentence, including that Thornton “needs enough time in prison to get treatment and vocational benefits.” Thornton claimed on appeal, without having objected in the district court, that the court’s rationale for sentencing violated precedential caselaw. With this new argument the Tenth Circuit reviewed this case for plain error. Finding none, the Court affirmed the district court’s sentence. View "United States v. Thornton" on Justia Law

Richard Hackford brought this action seeking to enjoin the State of Utah’s prosecution of traffic offenses he committed in December 2013. He argued on appeal that he was an Indian and the offenses occurred in Indian Country. Concluding that Hackford failed to meet the requirements for avoiding state criminal jurisdiction, the district court denied his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. He appealed, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Hackford v. Utah" on Justia Law

Reginald Humphrey appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with one count of producing child pornography. Humphrey argued the district court erred in rejecting his argument that applying 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) to the intrastate production of child pornography violated the Commerce Clause. Finding no reason to overturn its prior precedent rejecting this same argument, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

Based on a confidential informant's report that defendant-appellant Michael Simpson had drugs and guns, law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for his house. The search revealed cocaine, firearms and ammunition. A jury would ultimately find defendant guilty of thirteen counts relating to possession of the drugs and firearms. The district court imposed concurrent sentences of 240 months' imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute the cocaine (count 1), and 120 months' imprisonment for the remaining counts. Defendant argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the Court should reverse the conviction or, alternatively, the sentence. Finding no reversible error with respect to the conviction on Count 1 (possession of cocaine with intent to distribute) and Counts 2 and 5 (possession of an unregistered shotgun and ammunition), the Court affirmed. But it reversed the conviction on the other counts based on plain error in the jury instructions, remanding for a new trial. The Court rejected defendant's challenge to the sentence on Counts 1, 2, and 5. View "United States v. Simpson" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Marcus Washington sought to set aside his Kansas-state-court murder conviction. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a certificate of appealability (COA) so that he could appeal the denial of four claims raised in his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. In his petition, petitioner claimed: (1) the State exercised peremptory jury challenges against African Americans in violation of "Batson v. Kentucky," (476 U.S. 79 (1986)); (2) his rights under "Miranda v. Arizona," (384 U.S. 436 (1966)), were violated by the use of statements he made while in custody; (3) his trial attorney was ineffective in not calling him as a witness on the Miranda issue to show that he was in custody; and (4) the prosecutor’s closing argument improperly challenged his mental-disease defense. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas rejected petitioner's claims and dismissed his petition. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Washington v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Matthew Vogt was employed as a police officer with the City of Hays. In late 2013, Vogt applied for a position with the City of Haysville's police department. During Haysville's hiring process, Vogt disclosed that he had kept a knife obtained in the course of his work as a Hays police officer. Notwithstanding this disclosure, Haysville conditionally offered Vogt the job only if he reported his acquisition of the knife and returned it to the Hays police department. Vogt satisfied the condition, reporting to the Hays police department that he had kept the knife. The Hays police chief ordered Vogt to submit a written report concerning his possession of the knife. Vogt complied, submitting a vague one sentence report. He then provided Hays with a two-week notice of resignation, intending to accept the new job with Haysville. In the meantime, the Hays police chief began an internal investigation into Vogt's possession of the knife, including requiring a more detailed statement to supplement the report. Vogt complied, and the Hays police used the additional statement to locate additional evidence. Based on Vogt's statements and the additional evidence, the Hays police chief asked the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to start a criminal investigation, supplying Vogt's statements and the additional evidence. The criminal investigation led the Haysville police department to withdraw its job offer. Vogt was ultimately charged in Kansas state court with two felony counts related to his possession of the knife. Following a probable cause hearing, the state district court determined that probable cause was lacking and dismissed the charges. This suit followed, with Vogt alleging his constitutional rights were violated because his statements were used: (1) to start an investigation leading to the discovery of additional evidence concerning the knife; (2) to initiate a criminal investigation; (3) to bring criminal charges; and (4) to support the prosecution during the probable cause hearing. Vogt argued that these uses of compelled statements violated his right against self-incrimination. Based on the alleged Fifth Amendment violation, Vogt also invoked 42 U.S.C. 1983, suing: (1) the City of Hays; (2) the City of Haysville; and (3) four police officers. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, reasoning that: the right against self-incrimination was only a trial right, and Vogt's statements were used in pretrial proceedings, not in a trial. The Tenth Circuit, after review, concluded: (1) the Fifth Amendment is violated when criminal defendants are compelled to incriminate themselves and the incriminating statement is used in a probable cause hearing; (2) the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity; (3) the City of Haysville did not compel Vogt to incriminate himself; (4) Vogt stated a plausible claim for relief against the City of Hays. The Court therefore affirmed dismissal of claims against the four officers and Haysville, and reversed dismissal against the City of Hays. View "Vogt v. City of Hays" on Justia Law

The government appealed defendant-appellee John Walker's sentence. Walker was a serial bank robber who pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery. Walker attributed his criminal history to an addiction to drugs and alcohol. Hoping to overcome this addiction, Walker asked for an opportunity to attend in-patient treatment before he was sentenced. The district court agreed and the treatment program appeared to be successful. Walker's success in the treatment program led the district court to impose a sentence of time served, giving credit for the 33 days spent in pretrial detention. The Tenth Circuit found this sentence was "unreasonably short" based on the statutory sentencing factors and its precedent. As a result, the Court reversed. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law