The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal
Bad aim, conjugal visits, and a cavalier gun dealer.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
Hot dang! Today, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed to hear an IJ case of keen interest to state constitutional mavens: whether there's an implied cause of action to bring constitutional-tort claims against local governments and local officials who behave very, very poorly. (We say yes.)
And speaking of state constitutions, if you're a fan of courts interpreting them as something other than carbon copies of the federal Constitution, IJ's Rob Peccola has a heartening tale about Pennsylvania's search-and-seizure provision for you over at the Brennan Center's State Court Report.
New on the Short Circuit podcast: If someone bails you out make sure you get a receipt.
- In which the Second Circuit finds that Cavalier Knight has standing to challenge New York's gun-dealer licensing law but somehow spends 14 pages on legal analysis instead of just acknowledging that a guy named "Cavalier Knight" really has no choice but to become a gun dealer.
- Federal officials arrest lawful permanent resident to avert "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Permanent resident: That's bogus, this is all retaliation for my pro-Palestinian speech. D.N.J.: Release him. Third Circuit (over a dissent): Vacated. He can pursue his claims later in the removal process, and if he's wrongfully imprisoned in the meantime, well, that happens all the time.
- In the days following 9/11, co-founder of Falls Church, Va. Islamic Center tells followers they should repent, leave the U.S., join the mujahideen, go to Pakistan for combat training, and otherwise help Muslims defend Afghanistan. He's convicted of a slew of offenses in 2005, including soliciting others to levy war against the U.S. (It's on direct appeal some two decades later following a series of intervening appeals about the man's access to relevant documents.) Fourth Circuit: As inflammatory, disturbing, and deeply offensive as his words may have been, they did not urge a concrete criminal plan or provide operational assistance for the commission of any particular offense. Thus, his speech was protected by the First Amendment and his convictions vacated.
- Detroit police hatch a scheme in 1994 where they place snitches in cells to procure confessions from suspects; in exchange for testimony, the snitches are treated to sweet plea deals, conjugal visits, drugs, alcohol, etc. False testimony is encouraged. One such snitch's (particularly unreliable) testimony leads to a man's conviction for murdering his foster mother—a crime for which he'd be exonerated 26 years later. He sues. Sixth Circuit: To trial this must go. No qualified immunity.
- East Moline, Ill. prison officials stick inmate in a cell that lacks a toilet or a sink (while he recovers from surgery necessitated by an attack from another inmate). He has to live in close proximity to his waste for up to eight hours at a stretch, and he's unable to shower for days or weeks on end. Seventh Circuit: An Illinois regulation does indeed require a better sanitation situation, but that's neither here nor there Eighth Amendment-wise.
- Columbia County, Ark. officer tries to shoot nine-pound dog, misses. The ricochet hits the dog's owner in the leg. Eighth Circuit: But she can't sue because accidentally shooting someone isn't a constitutional violation. Concurrence: Wrong! She can't sue because we don't know if it's a constitutional violation.
- The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits making or initiating calls using prerecorded voices. Does that apply to an unsolicited text message that contains a video file (of, in this particular instance, Ivanka Trump telling people to vote)? Ninth Circuit: No. The statute applies only to calls or texts that begin with a prerecorded voice. Dissent: The video was sent contemporaneously with the text message and was automatically downloaded to the plaintiff's phone. Certainly at the pleadings stage, that's good enough for the TCPA.
- Friends, it is contended that in Jones v. United States (1960), SCOTUS as good as deleted the Fourth Amendment's "oath or affirmation" requirement, which is bad and wrong and results in situations like the instant case, where warrants issued on the strength of double hearsay from a patently unreliable source. Tenth Circuit (unpublished): Good luck with the cert petition. [This is an IJ case.]
- Colorado Springs, Colo. officer tases suspected car thief as he flees (on foot) down a rocky slope. He falls and breaks his neck. Tenth Circuit (unpublished): The officer violated dept. policy by not warning him before the tasing. But that's neither here nor there. Qualified immunity.
- Residents of DeKalb County, Ga. want to collect signatures for a local referendum in nearby Atlanta aimed at repealing a city ordinance that authorized the lease of land the city owns in DeKalb County to the Atlanta Police Federation for construction of a new training facility. Uh oh! The Atlanta municipal code restricts signature gathering for local referendum petitions to Atlanta residents. A juicy First Amendment issue! Eleventh Circuit: Unfortunately, the referendum process cannot be used to repeal local ordinances, so there's no harm to the plaintiffs.
- After high-speed chase through Escambia County, Fla. in stolen car, man flees on foot. He's convicted for carrying a firearm. Eleventh Circuit (unpublished): And his sentence is fine because a prior aggravated assault is a "crime of violence." Concurrence: Y'know long sentences don't deter crime; the expectation of getting caught does.
- University of Florida law student tweets that "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary." He's expelled and sues, alleging that UF violated his First Amendment rights. The district court grants a preliminary injunction ordering the student's reinstatement. UF asks the Eleventh Circuit to stay the injunction pending appeal. Eleventh Circuit (unpublished): Granted. Under Tinker v. Des Moines, the student's calls for extra-legal violence were likely not protected by the First Amendment. Dissent: Tinker shouldn't apply to law students, and even vile tweets are protected by the First Amendment.
- And in en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will reconsider its decision that the House of Representatives did not violate the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution when, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it allowed members to vote by proxy on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.
Can Renee Good's family sue the ICE officer who shot her in the face? IJ's Anya Bidwell discusses the challenges and complexities over on the Bloomberg Law podcast. Meanwhile, over at Bloomberg Law's op-ed page, she and Patrick Jaicomo have some words about what states can do to reopen the courthouse doors.
Papers, please. Over at Newsweek, IJ's Josh Windham explains that, contrary to DHS Secretary Noem's recent comments, American citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship on them at all times.
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
Concurrence: Y'know long sentences don't deter crime; the expectation of getting caught does.
Re: 11. The concurring judge made a curious choice to bring that up in this case. Looking at the Florida Inmate Search, our suspect was born in 1990 and would have been 34 at the time of his most recent crime spree. Per the opinion:
As part of its calculations, the PSI noted that Carter
previously was convicted of several crimes, including petit theft,
grand theft auto, fleeing/eluding law enforcement, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, unarmed burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, battery, grand theft auto, criminal mischief, possession of a weapon or ammunition by a convicted felon, dealing in stolen property, aggravated assault, terroristic threats and acts, and criminal trespass
So, clearly, this guy has been caught a bunch of times and given a short sentence, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to have this rap sheet and be a free man at 34. He's even past the age where most thugs age out of the crime game. If there's a lock him up and throw away the key case, then this is it. It's clear that second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, etc., chances are completely futile. The long sentence may not deter crime, but a predator in a cage can't be hunting people on the street at the same time.
Given his rap sheet, the likelihood of getting caught obviously wasn't a deterrent, either.
I'm feeling too lazy right now to go look at any original source material, so maybe it's addressed therein, but without knowing how many separate prosecutions that was, and what the sequence was, we can't really draw any conclusions. If he was arrested for crime #1, convicted, sentenced, released, and then he committed crime #2, was arrested, convicted, sentenced, released, etc., seriatim, then yeah, we can argue that this guy wasn't deterrable.
But many of those crimes sound like they were committed concurrently (grand theft auto, fleeing/eluding law enforcement, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, for example) before being arrested for any of them.
But if he committed crimes #1-6 simultaneously (or committed them all before )
"Can Renee Good's family sue the ICE officer who shot her in the face?"
Can the ICE agent sue Good's partner for directing her to "drive baby drive" resulting in Good hitting the agent thus causing his injuries?
I still can't believe the partner whined to the agents "Why did you have real bullets?" She should be arrested for pure stupidity for that comment alone.
I don't know where that "fact" comes from, but I can't believe you'd be such a heartless bitch fascist that you'd be criticizing someone who had just watched the murder of her wife for the way she spontaneously reacted to that crime.
(Well, actually, I can believe it, because "heartless bitch fascist" describes your entire commenting history here, although that description also needs the word 'stupid.')
You claim to be an attorney, but then use the word “murder”. Not only does that make you sound like a TDS addled political agitator. Which many believe already. But it also makes you sound like an incompetent attorney.
The definition of “murder” is taught in 1L Crim Law. And is tested on at least the Multistate Bar Exam.
I wouldn’t be quibbling here if you had limited yourself to liability
For the death of Renee Good. But as an attorney, you went much further, implicitly asserting the mens rea of “murder”.
“ but I can't believe you'd be such a heartless bitch fascist that you'd be criticizing someone who had just watched the murder of her wife for the way she spontaneously reacted to that crime.”
It’s evidence that Good and her wife (apparently, they aren’t really married - just living together), didn’t take the interaction with ICE seriously. It appears to have been great fun for them. They could just cosplay, then when Good was told to get out of her vehicle, she just laughed and drove off, with her “wife” extorting her to “Drive, Baby, Drive”. It was just a big game to them, and the “wife” was shocked to discover that it was deadly serious for the ICE agents.
Are we supposed to ignore effectively exonerating evidence because it is embarrassing to the survivors? Makes them feel badly? And esp here, when you go on to imply (because you are well known here as a atty) that the ICE agent had the mens rea to have “murdered” Good.
Well, guess what? That statement goes straight to the mens rea of Good et ux, and whether or not Good would have been guilty of (probably 2nd Degree Depraved Heart/Mind) Murder if she had killed the ICE Agent she struck with her vehicle. Which affects Justification for Ross shooting Good. And reduces the likelihood that said wife was an innocent bystander, but rather was an integral part of their stratagem.
But yes, I mourn for the death of Good and for the devastating effect that that has on her loved ones. But I also would have similarly mourned for the death of Ross, if that had happened instead. Would you have?
“Can the ICE agent sue Good's partner for directing her to "drive baby drive" resulting in Good hitting the agent thus causing his injuries”.
Sure. They can sue. But probably not successfully. His family though might be able to successfully sue Good’s estate, for the injuries she caused by striking him with her vehicle. I expect though that she is/was judgement proof. There is no evidence that she has recently been employed, and it’s an open question who paid for their move to MN from Canada.
A box of BandAids costs about $5 at Amazon.
I like the gist of #4 - as a cop knows that he's stitching up the defendant with a false witness, the information that he's stitching up the defendant is exculpatory and hence should have been disclosed, so no QI. This argument should be used in all cases across the US where a cop tries to argue QI after a stitch-up.
The dog opinion is eight pages total. Helpfully quick read.
I see a possible slander claim:
When Hight [homeowner] opened it, two dogs ran out toward Williams. Startled, he [police officer] screamed, “Get back! Get your dog! I’ll kill that motherfucker! Get your goddamn dog!” He then fired a warning shot, which caused the dogs to retreat.
How did he know the dog practiced incest? [ed: he's kidding.]
Plus, really? The dog shot at was a "9-pound Pomeranian," aka an "effect" for Fourth Amendment purposes (see the opinion). Not a "person." A dog might be made a "person" for state law purposes.
The police were there to respond to a domestic violence call. The best way to handle that is to shoot a resident's dog, and the bullet ricochets and hits the resident. (editor: he's being sarcastic).
Anyway, though she might warrant some damages, the case is about limited federal claims. On that, the result seems appropriate, though maybe the more restrained concurrence is the best path.
Too many idiots have badges who should be in a jail themselves. If anything his actions need to be broadcast far and wide so that people when passing can call him a pussy or dog abuser because he warrants shame
What’s going to be fun, is “BOST ET AL. v. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS ET AL.” Decided last week by the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by CJ Roberts. It determined that candidates for office do have federal standing to sue over election issues.
Most of the 2020 election cases were dismissed, very often on Standing grounds. No one essentially had Standing to sue election officials for failing to obey election laws. Well, we know now that the candidate for office does have Standing. The loss of the office that he is running for is his cognizable injury.
This could be big in enabling lawsuits trying to enforce election laws.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-568_gfbh.pdf
Roberts wrote for five. Barrett wrote for Kagan, concurring in judgment. So, it was more like a 5-2-2 breakdown.
Bost might have broad support since liberals and conservatives bring these lawsuits. And, there is value to deciding the issues before an election. As one person blogging at Election Law Blog noted:
One of the important policies about the conduct of elections is that the rules be clearly settled in advance of the election. The Bost decision will contribute to that important aim of the election system.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=153834
Meanwhile, Prof. Orin Kerr previously talked about a court of appeals ruling about so-called geofence warrants.
SCOTUS yesterday decided to address the issue. Perhaps, Kerr will eventually talk about it on this blog. He referenced cert grant on his Bluesky account.