---

 Search the Case Law Digest

CONTENTS

• Some of the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.
• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration required. Opinions are usually free; other documents are 10¢ per page.
• Access to cases linked to www.findlaw.com may require registration, which is free.  

Failure to Disclose Evidence

     A former prisoner convicted of murder had his sentence modified to time served after finding documents that appeared to show that the police and prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from his defense, in violation of their obligations under Brady v. Maryland. Despite this, a federal appeals court ruled, his claim for damages for the failure to disclose evidence were barred by the principles in Heck v. Humphrey, since his conviction had not been overturned on appeal, expunged by executive order, or declared invalid by a state tribunal, nor had it been called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. An award of damages on his claims would imply the invalidity of his conviction, so no such claim could be pursued. Griffin v. Baltimore Police Dept., #14-1494, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 18723 (4th Cir.).

False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant

     An arrestee sued for false arrest in violation of his federal civil rights. During deliberations following the trial of his claims, the jury asked the court whether “refusal to acknowledge/respond to police questions [is] considered obstruction of governmental administration," an offense he had been charged with. The trial judge told them that “[r]efusal to answer police questions alone, without more, would not constitute obstruction of governmental administration,” but then added that whether it could amount to that offense would “depend on the totality of the circumstances as you find them.” A federal appeals court vacated a verdict for the defense, noting that New York state criminal law is unambiguous that a person does not obstruct governmental administration if all they did was refuse to answer police questions or provide identification, as both actions were constitutionally protected. Further, such obstruction requires a physical or independently unlawful action. A new trial was therefore ordered. Uzoukwu v. Krawiecki, #13-3483, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 19372 (2nd Cir.).

      A couple and their three children, driving home from a family outing, were stopped by two deputies (one female and one male). The female deputy initiated the stop because she mistakenly believed that the vehicle was stolen. A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on a false arrest claim against the female deputy because the arrest, which was without probable cause, was the result of her unreasonable conduct. Ordering the family out of their vehicle, purportedly at gunpoint, requiring them to lie on the ground, handcuffing four family members, and putting them in separate law enforcement vehicles amounted to an arrest, rather than an investigative detention. The male deputy in the incident was entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim as he could rely on information conveyed to him by the female deputy, which he did not know was mistaken. Because of disputed issues of material fact on an excessive force claim, neither the two deputies nor the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on that claim. The disputed issues included whether the deputies pointed loaded guns at the family and how a nine-year-old child was treated during the incident. Maresca v. County of Bernalillo, #14-2163, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 18425 (10th Cir.).

Firearms Related: Intentional Use

****Editor's Case Alert****

    Rather than submit to an officer armed with an arrest warrant, a man drove off in his car, leading officers on a high-speed chase. The pursued man twice called police dispatch, claiming that he had a gun and threatening to shoot the officers. The dispatcher broadcast these threats and the possibility that the motorist might be intoxicated. A tire spike strip was placed beneath a highway overpass in an attempt to stop the pursued vehicle. A state trooper drover to that location, radioing a plan to shoot and disable the car. He later spotted the vehicle and fired six shots. The car engaged the spikes, hit the median, and rolled. The motorist was killed by the trooper's shots. No shots hit the car's engine block, radiator, or hood. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a denial of qualified immunity to the trooper on an excessive force claim. The Court did no address whether firing at the vehicle in this manner under these circumstances was a Fourth Amendment violation, but rather ruled that the trooper was entitled to qualified immunity because prior precedents did not indicate that it was "beyond debate" that he acted unreasonably. He had confronted a fugitive that was reported to be intoxicated, who was trying to evade arrest through a high-speed car flight, and who had twice threatened to shoot officers. At the time of the shooting, the vehicle was moments away from reaching the trooper's location. Mullenix v. Luna, #14-1143, 2015 U.S. Lexis 7160.

     A sheriff's deputy providing back-up during a drug bust of a vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger thought that the vehicle was accelerating and trying to run him down, and he fell to the ground, firing shots at the car as he did so. One of the shots hit the plaintiff passenger, and he sued for excessive use of force. A federal appeals court, reversing the trial court, held that the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity. Firing at the car to try to stop it was not excessive force when he would have reasonably perceived that he was in imminent danger of being run over. Singletary v. Vargas, #14-14424, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 18835 (11th Cir.).

Firearms Related: Second Amendment Issues

     A federal appeals court ruled that the core provisions of New York and Connecticut state laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines did not violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The court applied intermediate scrutiny to the claims and found that the laws upheld were substantially related to public safety and crime reduction. It also held that individual provisions challenged were not void for vagueness. It struck down, however, new York's law regulating load limits and Connecticut's law prohibiting the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, #14-36, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 18121 (2nd Cir.).

First Amendment

     A man claimed a violation of his constitutional rights based on police using physical force to eject him from a city court where he was waiting for his attorney in a public area outside th county clerk's office. A federal appeals court held that the plaintiff's First Amendment claim was properly dismissed because the plaintiff had not alleged that he was engaged in any form of expressive activity at the time or that his removal impaired his access to any judicial records. His Fourth Amendment claim should not have been dismissed for failure to plead seizure, as the use of physical force to restrain him and control his movements so as to eject him, could be either reasonable or unreasonable, even though he was free to go anywhere else he wanted after ejected from the court. Salmon v. Blesser, #14-1993, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16070 (2nd Cir.).

Police Plaintiff: False Arrest

     A former police officer sued over an off-duty incident in which, after several persons attacked him, other officers allegedly falsely arrested him, detained him for five days, and denied him access to medical care for his three broken ribs. While the criminal charges against him were dropped, the police department allegedly held an administrative hearing and fired him because of the incident. His prior lawyer in the civil lawsuit filed a stipulation with the court dismissing most of his claims. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asked the court to reopen the case because the stipulation was purportedly filed without his knowledge. A federal appeals court, vacating the trial court's refusal to reopen the case, held that there was a factual dispute over the prior attorney's authority to stipulate to the dismissal of the claims, making it necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. The trial court had relied on the proposition that parties are deemed bound by the acts of their lawyers. Gomez v. City of New York, #14-3583, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 19355 (2nd Cir.).

Terrorism and National Security Issues

     Muslim plaintiffs claimed that the New York City Police Department, since January of 2002, had carried out a secret program monitoring the lives of Muslims, as well as their businesses, houses of worship, organizations and schools both in New York and surrounding states such as New Jersey solely because they were Muslim. The program allegedly included the use of remote controlled surveillance cameras aimed at mosques and the sending of undercover officers into mosques, student organizations, businesses, and neighborhoods believed to be heavily Muslim. The plaintiffs argued that this falsely stigmatized Muslims as criminals who should be pervasively surveilled. Overturning a trial court dismissal of the lawsuit for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, a federal appeals court held that the allegations “tell a story in which there is standing to complain and which present constitutional concerns that must be addressed and, if true, redressed.” The court compared the alleged surveillance program to the situations faced by Japanese-Americans during World War II, Jewish-Americans during the Red Scare era, and African-Americans during the civil rights era. Claims in the case involved alleged violations of religious liberty under the First Amendment and equal protection violations based on intentional discrimination against a protected class. The court stated that the allegations raised a presumption of unconstitutionality that the city had an obligation to rebut. The plaintiffs' First Amendment religious freedom claims could also go forward. Hassan v. City of New York, #14-1688, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17776 (3rd Cir.).

    The plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, sued the FBI for violations of constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, claiming that FBI agents detained, interrogated, and tortured him over the course of four months in three countries in Africa. Upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit, the federal appeals court stated that when the actions occurred during a terrorism investigation, "special factors" required hesitation in allowing a Bivens lawsuit for money damages. Bivens actions are usually not favored in cases involving the military, national security, or intelligence gathering. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court had never “created or even favorably mentioned a nonstatutory right of action for damages on account of conduct that occurred outside the borders of the United States.” The issue of remedies involving matters of foreign policy and national security are usually left to the political branches of government. Meshal v. Higgenbotham, #14-5194, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 18453 (D.C. Cir.).

•Return to the Contents menu.

     Sex Trafficking: A Victim-Centered Approach to Sex Trafficking, by Larry Alvarez and Jocelyn Canas-Moreira, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (November 2015).

     Societal Trends: Societal Trends Facing Law Enforcement, by C. Sidney Heal, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (November 2015).

  Reference:

• Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications
• AELE's list of recently-noted civil liability law resources.