The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Buried treasure, visible shackles, and super weird texts.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.
For 18 months, without a warrant, investigators pointed three surveillance cameras that recorded comings and goings at the home of an Illinois man 24/7 and allowed federal, state, and local officers to watch live from a remote location. Is that a search? Over at Bloomberg Law IJers Josh Windham and Daryl James urge the Supreme Court to take up the case of Tuggle v. United States and to reconsider its current Fourth Amendment doctrine, under which the answer to that question is a resounding no.
New on the Bound By Oath podcast: a deep dive into absolute prosecutorial immunity, a doctrine whose foundations are baloney.
- Fun historical fact: The word "cheat" derives from the legal doctrine of "escheatment" and the widespread perception that state escheators were more interested in enriching themselves than in property rights—a perception that this Third Circuit opinion suggests is maybe not purely "historical." (Way back in historic times, we discussed escheatment on the podcast — starting about around 24:40.)
- Probationer: After I was released from prison, my probation officer started having super-weird text conversations with my girlfriend about his love life. I want my supervised release ended early. District Court: Wow! Sounds like going through all that may have severely harmed your reintegration into society. So, request denied. Third Circuit: Whoa! We agree that you still need to be on supervised release, but we want to be clear that the officer's conduct was reprehensible and the trial court shouldn't have weighed it against you. It's not your fault. [Ed.: Friends, this judicial opinion contains an emoji. (Just thought you should know.)]
- In the 82 months ICE has held a Honduran immigrant in custody, they've transferred him at least 15 times to 6 different facilities in 4 different states. Can some court, somewhere, hear his habeas petition? Third Circuit: Potentially.
- Former Virginia middle school student files a pseudonymous lawsuit against school officials, alleging that during her time at a Fairfax County school, she was sexually harassed, sexually abused, and raped—and that school officials did nothing when alerted to the conduct. School officials: The plaintiff didn't seek permission to file pseudonymously, and by the time she told the court her real name, the statute of limitations had run. So the court has no jurisdiction. District Court: Well, that's both wrong and unjust. Fourth Circuit: Just so. Following the rules about pseudonyms is important, but failure to do so is not a jurisdictional bar.
- It is so obviously unconstitutional to arrest a journalist for asking questions, says the Fifth Circuit (over a forthcoming dissent), that Laredo, Tex. officials are not protected by qualified immunity—even in the absence of a prior case directly on point and even if they relied on an obviously unconstitutional statute. Moreover, ahem, as "The Institute for Justice, a respected national public interest law firm … rightly observes, the position urged by the City of Laredo in this case is 'dangerous to a free society,' for '[i]t assumes that the government can choose proper and improper channels for newsgathering—indeed, that the government can decide what is and is not newsworthy.'"
- Federal inmate breaks his CPAP mask. Inmate: It was an accident! Prison: We think not and hence strip you of 27 days' good-conduct time. Bureau of Prisons regional director: Affirmed. Magistrate Judge: Yep. District court: Uh huh. Fifth Circuit: Quite.
- In the 1990s, a Michigan drug kingpin hired a hitman to murder his half-brother, after which the kingpin himself murdered the hitman. He's sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Last year, he requested compassionate release, citing his heightened susceptibility to COVID-19. District court (Jan. 22, 2021): Agreed—release him immediately. Sixth Circuit motions panel (Feb. 5, 2021): The district court's order is stayed. Sixth Circuit merits panel (Nov. 3, 2021): The district court's order is vacated, and the court should reexamine the issue in light of current circumstances (including that the inmate has since been offered the vaccine and declined it). Dissent: The district court acted within its broad discretion.
- Seventh Circuit: Just a reminder that you need a really good reason to visibly shackle a criminal defendant in front of a jury, particularly if the prosecutor is giving closing argument and going on about how dangerous and unpredictable the defendant is. So try this guy again or let him go.
- Man goes hiking in Yellowstone National Park, looking for literal buried treasure. He gets lost and needs to be rescued by helicopter, after which he is charged with and convicted of reckless disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. Tenth Circuit: And the magistrate judge did everything by the book, so the conviction stands. (Adding insult to injury, some other guy found the treasure a couple years later.)
The Institute for Justice is looking for an entry level candidate to join us as a Litigation Assistant in our Arlington, Va. office. This is a unique opportunity for a non-lawyer to play a front-seat role in a public interest firm that litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases, stops government abuses, and champions individual rights in courts across the country. The Litigation Assistant will support scheduling review of individual briefs in active litigation, tracking and prompting the key steps necessary to advance our long-term litigation goals. This is a fast-paced role, and the ideal candidate will have demonstrated attention to detail. Click here to learn more.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm puzzled by the hiker case.
The guy doesn't seem to have been too bright - he wore tennis shoes on what is apparently a difficult hike, and what happened to his GPS unit?
He clearly, IMO, should pay the cost of the rescue, but a misdemeanor conviction seems to go too far. Yes, he did something risky and normally quite foolish by leaving the trail, but he did have some sort of reason to think it was less risky than staying on it. I don't see why the fact that he had bear spray is an argument for recklessness. Yes, he knew there might be bears, but he might have run into one on the trail as well as off, couldn't he?
I think his behavior was clearly reckless - he departed the trail into rough country, something he obviously knew was dangerous (which what the bear spray, phone calls, and testimony about mountain lions and bear sign points to). But I don't see how his recklessness "created a risk of public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence". Requiring him to pay for the rescue makes perfect sense, but I agree that the rest of it seems to be more the ranger (and judge) annoyed at the guy than useful and meaningful punishment.
But this ruling focuses only on the "reckless" term. Is the rest of it really that obviously applicable, or did the guy just not argue it?
This guy was specifically looking for the Forrest Fenn treasure. (Most folks probably realized that just from the summary, or from reading at least two pages into the opinion itself.)
According to the article linked below, many people hunting for the Fenn treasure have caused property damage, committed crimes, created hazardous situations requiring risky and expensive rescues like this one, and even died. "[N]umerous hunters of the chest ... were charged for illegal searches inside Yellowstone National Park. These included a man who dug in a historic cemetery and another who illegally rappelled into the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone in winter. In 2017 an Illinois man fell to his death while searching for the treasure in the park. In Wyoming south of the park, a Virginia man was rescued three times in three years while searching for the Fenn treasure."
https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/treasure-seeker-must-pay-yellowstone-for-helicopter-rescue-loses-appeal/article_268e6396-655a-5c84-b17d-b62bc13bf755.html
So I actually don't have much difficulty understanding why the Park Service takes a real dim view of these Indiana Jones-wannabes and wants to send an emphatic deterrent message, given all the havoc they've wreaked in the process.
Interestingly, the opinion notes the guy was a 40-something oil roustabout. According to Wikipedia (see below), that was rated one of the worst jobs out there in 2010. So I guess he was really hoping to better his life situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roustabout#Oil_industry_in_the_US
Finally, to Toranth's question, it's the latter. The opinion notes on page 5 that "[r]ecklessness is the only element of disorderly conduct at issue in this appeal."
MORITZ, Circuit Judge.
The problem here is that the definition of "prohibited condition" cannot include assuming the ordinary risks associated with proper hiking. E.g., here is no indication that bears are less numerous on the trail than off it, so as bernard points out the presence of bear spray doesn't really offer any indication of anything in particular. That he brought a GPS device but not, so far as we can tell from the account, any map is gormless, but proves rather an unawareness of the risk of getting lost rather than awareness of it. Did he carry more water past the cache point than he would expect to consume in the course of the rest of that day? The judge notes the water, but not in any quantity indicating an awareness of the possibility of getting lost...
To clarify, the judge writes: "Lantis’s preparations for his day hike reveal his subjective awareness of the general risks of hiking in the wilderness: ..." But for the misdemeanor conviction to be correct Lantus must have recklessly assumed not "the general risks of hiking in the wilderness", but something more. And on the record I think that's not quite proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If his preparations were the only sign, perhaps.
But he freely admits he left the trails, planned to leave the trails, knew the area was rough terrain, untraveled, and contained bears and mountain lions.
The equipment just points as support to his own testimony as to his actions and their purpose.
As I said above, I agree with the court that this guy was reckless. I just don't understand how he created any sort of public alarm, violence, etc, that he was punished for.
I agree. I have spent any happy months over the decades climbing and rambling off trail in the Rocky Mountains. When bear spray and gps became available I got them. It seemed like a prudent thing to do, rather than recklessness. It seems contradictory to fault the guy both for not carrying enough food and clothing and also for carrying bear spray and a gps.
I happily never needed rescue. Indeed, rescue wasn't an option for most of the time, the satellite beacons are a relatively recent
development.
I have spent a few nights shivering on ledges when climbs went wrong, a few days hobbling out with injuries, have heard that awful wuffling sound of rocks coming down when you are on an exposed face, and have hunkered down in a few storms high up that had you wondering. The mountains aren't risk free. But then, say, driving to the ski resort or going clubbing downtown aren't risk free either
Not only a reasonable qualified immunity decision from the 5th Circuit, but one that accepts the idea the blatantly obvious is obvious even to police!?!? Good god, has anyone checked the temperature in hell today? Is that pigs I see flying by my window?
I look forward to the era of cops refusing to carry out arrest warrants on weapons charges on the grounds that the meaning of "shall not be infringed" seems obviously absolute, and that officers are not allowed to rely on either the judgment of the judge who signed the arrest warrant nor on the fact that the law hasn't been ruled unconstitutional as defenses.
On that day, I will pour libations.
Humorously, the decision highlights "Diehard 2" of all movies in saying how stupid the Police & DA were. The police sought the arrest warrant in the first place. They weren't innocent bystanders. They were looking for a reason to punish this woman for embarrassing them. Yet more reason we should put effort into repealing laws than making new ones.
Don't worry, based on the latest round of Supreme Court decisions on QI, this will probably get appealed and overturned.
"Inmate: It was an accident! Prison: We think not and hence strip you of 27 days' good-conduct time. Bureau of Prisons regional director: Affirmed. Magistrate Judge: Yep. District court: Uh huh. Fifth Circuit: Quite."
John Ross, entertaining while instructing. He's a world treasure!
Nothing like humor to give you a feeling of bliss.
In the 1990s, a Michigan drug kingpin hired a hitman to murder his half-brother, after which the kingpin himself murdered the hitman. He's sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Last year, he requested compassionate release, citing his heightened susceptibility to COVID-19. District court (Jan. 22, 2021): Agreed—release him immediately. Sixth Circuit motions panel (Feb. 5, 2021): The district court's order is stayed. Sixth Circuit merits panel (Nov. 3, 2021): The district court's order is vacated, and the court should reexamine the issue in light of current circumstances (including that the inmate has since been offered the vaccine and declined it). Dissent: The district court acted within its broad discretion.
My god, we're a deeply sick society if the decision even got this far. Obviously his petition for compassionate release should be denied out of hand, he's too dangerous to exist in free society. If he dies of covid, then covid is merely doing what the state should have done in the first place. If he survives, fine, he can live to death inside a cage.
But at least he has a good reason for refusing the vaccine. Unlike the normal idiot's rationales; his makes perfect sense. "Hmm, I could either (i) Take the vaccine and stay locked up for years, or for forever, or (ii) refuse the vaccine and then ask for release due to my increase risk of Covid."
It's kinda genius, in a way . . . sadly for him, it also required that the decision-makers all have their collective heads up their asses, and it seems that all these people had actual functioning brains. But I give the guy props for the effort.
Yeah, I suppose we'll never know for sure, but I suspect this guy's refusal was strategic. But on remand, the district court should treat his risk, for purposes of compassionate release, as if he was vaccinated. He can't benefit from his own nonfeasance.
What's more, it's perverse from a public policy perspective. The government is working very hard to make sure anti-vaxxers can't function in public, up to and including the new OSHA rule. So releasing an unvaxxed guy because he's unvaxxed, and therefore exposing him to the general public, is truly perverse. Supposing he even got out, eventually he would need to support himself... at which time OSHA would make him get vaccinated, effectively obviating the reason he got out of jail in the first place.
Oh, and by the way, the reason he's "high risk" in the first place is because of obesity. So he's taking the position he should get a free pass for murder because he ate too much food and then refused a vaccination. I admire the lawyers advocating on his behalf but, come on man.
"New on the Bound By Oath podcast: a deep dive into absolute prosecutorial immunity, a doctrine whose foundations are baloney."
Wow. Compliments. All lawyer immunities are self dealt, grow the toxic industry, and have no justification in fact nor in logic.
In what is clearly the most noteworthy thing about this post...
"[Ed.: Friends, this judicial opinion contains an emoji. Just thought you should know.)"
Opening with a bracket and closing with a parenthesis? That's downright offensive! But seriously, please fix.
It’s kind of misleading too. The implication is the judge or clerk thought it would be clever to work an emoji somewhere into the opinion itself. But when you go looking for it you realize the situation is different. The emoji only shows up because it’s part of text messages that happened to be quoted from the record. It’s not like the judge/clerk deliberately used one in an effort to be hip and with it.
I was reassured to see that the emoji also got an explanatory footnote and citation to Emojipedia.org. which certainly sounds authoritative.
Indeed. Unfortunately, at the time of publication, Black's Emoji Dictionary wasn't available for use.
Heh
Oops. I should have used:
🙂
The purpose of government is cheating -- enrichment of politicians since the first ones picked up some clubs and wandered down to that newfangled farmers' tradin' post and demanded farmers start paying their fair share.
The error I, and everyone else, makes is assuming corruption is an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect. Nay. It is government operating as intended.
If it does anything beneficial, that is the unexpected side effect.
"Is it a problem?"
"Naaah, I'm Dunnheir."