Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[03/09] US v. Cha
In a prosecution for conspiracy, sex trafficking and coercion, and enticement to travel for the purpose of prostitution, a grant of defendants' motion to suppress evidence is affirmed where the warrantless seizure of defendants' residence, which lasted a minimum of 26.5 hours, was constitutionally unreasonable.
[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.
[03/09] US v. Stearn
Following a grand jury indictment of defendants for federal narcotics and weapons offenses, district court's order granting in part motions to suppress evidence in favor of defendants is, with one irrelevant exception, reversed in its entirety where: 1) the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to search the apparent residence of a confirmed drug dealer; 2) although closer probable cause questions are presented by the searches of other residences, each search is upheld under the Leon good faith exception as each warrant was sufficiently colored in probable cause to justify the executing officers' good faith reliance; and 3) the suppression of a defendant's saliva sample as "fruit of poisonous tree" is reversed as the defendant failed to prove a primary invasion of his own Fourth Amendment rights.
[03/09] US v. Salem
In a prosecution of defendants for wire fraud and receiving stolen funds, district court's sentences based on relevant conduct findings are remanded as the district court made findings as to the reasonableness of the co-schemers' acts only, but it made no finding as to the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity under U.S.S.G. section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
[03/09] Redd v. Wright
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of plaintiff inmate's confinement in tuberculosis hold following his refusal to submit to tuberculosis testing, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) prior precedent did not "clearly foreshadow" a holding that the testing policy, as applied in this case, violated plaintiff's Free Exercise rights; 2) it could not reasonably be said that defendants acted in violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law by implementing the policy; and 3) it was not clearly established that plaintiff was entitled to some kind of notice that religious objectors could be exempt from the policy.
[03/08] US v. Miller
Dismissal of defendant's petition for a writ of audita querela challenging a restitution order, arising from his conviction for conducting a monetary transaction with criminally-derived funds and evading income tax, is affirmed where: 1) if it still exists, the writ of audita querela can only be applied to rectify a judgment which, though correct when rendered, has since become infirm; and 2) since all parties to this case agree that the district court's restitution order was initially correct, and because the statute does not require the order to be modified every time a subsequent payment is made on a restitution obligation, there is no infirmity in defendant's judgment for a writ of audita querela to rectify.
[03/08] People v. Cobb
Following defendant's completion of sentence for assault with a deadly weapon and commitment to a state hospital for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO), judgment of the court of appeals finding that defendant was not denied due process in extension of his commitment is affirmed as, without a time waiver or good cause, section 2972 does not permit continued confinement when an extension trial does not begin before the scheduled release date.
[03/08] People v. Lara
Following defendant's prosecution for false imprisonment of a child, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, and commitment to a state hospital, judgment of the court of appeal directing that the trial court grant defendant's motion to dismiss the petition for an extension of his commitment is reversed where: 1) the statutory deadline for filing an extension petition is directory, not mandatory, as long as the petition is filed before the expiration of the current commitment; 2) defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the petition on due process grounds; and 3) upon motion, defendant would have been entitled under due process to release pending trial, subject to possible proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. However, defendant is not now eligible for release because the court retained jurisdiction to try him and he received a fair trial.
[03/08] People ex rel. Reisig v. Acuna
In an action initiated by the district attorney against the Broderick Boys, an alleged criminal street gang, and 23 of its members to enjoin as a public nuisance their activities in a 2.98-square mile area of West Sacramento, grant of district attorney's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) sufficient and credible evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the Broderick Boys is a criminal street gang whose activities have created a public nuisance in the designated area; and 2) two provisions in the injunction, one dealing with controlled substances and the other dealing with the consumption of alcoholic beverages, are unenforceable.
[03/08] People v. Puluc-Sique
People's request to extend the appellate disentitlement doctrine (applicable to fugitives) to a criminal defendant who had been deported from the country by the ICE is denied as, absent additional circumstances not presented here, a defendant who has been deported does not stand in the same shoes as one who has voluntarily placed himself beyond the court's control.
More...
|
