The following is presented as a service of the ABA Criminal Justice Section http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
The ABA Section of Criminal Justice is pleased to provide Professor Rory Little’s Perspective, a Case Brief in U.S. v. Stevens which includes the Holding, Facts, and Analysis in the case.
——————————————————————————–
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
United States v. Stevens (No. 08–769)
United States Supreme Court Opinion Decided: April 20, 2010
In City of Ontario California et. al. v. Jeff Quon et. al. the U.S. Supreme Court is wrestling with the issue of whether public employees are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on their workplace pages or similar devices without such messages being subject to review from recipients public employer. The city of Ontario, California is asking the justices to overturn a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that it violated the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of Mr. Quon, a member of the Ontario police department SWAT team, when it reviewed transcripts of his and another offiicer’s text messages on their department pagers. Below are links to the argument transcipts and other docuemts related to this case:
Argument: City of Ontario California, et. al. v. Jeff Quon, et. al. 08-1332
The Scotus Wiki contains links to other useful documents related to this case.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
April 5 – April 9, 2010:.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2010 Chamberlin v. Town of Stoughton, No. 08-1289 In plaintiff-officers’ 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a town, its officials and police chiefs involving various workplace discrimination and harassment claims, district court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of one of the two police chiefs is affirmed as any error in granting the directed verdict was harmless because of the rejection of plaintiffs’ claims against the other police chief by a different jury in a second trial.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 06, 2010 US v. Flores-Rivera, No. 09-1131 In defendant’s action seeking return of seized property without notice arising from his drug arrest and conviction in 1991, district court’s ruling that his property should be returned but simultaneously ordering that the funds be applied to defendant’s criminal fine is vacated and remanded with instructions to promptly conduct a hearing, follow the applicable statutory procedures, and otherwise provide defendant with the long-delayed process to which he is entitled.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 06, 2010 US v. Sed, No. 09-1489 In a prosecution of defendant for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute drugs and other related crimes, defendant’s conviction and sentence is affirmed where: 1) the seizure of defendant by Pennsylvania State Police in Ohio was not unreasonable and the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress; and 2) the district court did not err when it failed to grant defendant a downward departure or an additional downward variance as the record amply supports the district court’s conclusion that defendant perjured himself and that the Pennsylvania State Police did not act improperly in conducting their sting operation.
Continue reading
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
April 5 – April 9, 2010:.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2010 Chamberlin v. Town of Stoughton, No. 08-1289 In plaintiff-officers’ 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a town, its officials and police chiefs involving various workplace discrimination and harassment claims, district court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of one of the two police chiefs is affirmed as any error in granting the directed verdict was harmless because of the rejection of plaintiffs’ claims against the other police chief by a different jury in a second trial.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2010 Educational Media Co. v. Swecker, No. 08-1798 In an action brought by college newspapers alleging that two of Virginia’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Board’s regulations restricting alcohol advertisements violate their First Amendment rights, summary judgment declaring both provisions facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoining their enforcement is reversed and remanded where, on its face, the Board’s ban on alcoholic advertisements in college student publications passes muster under Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). .
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2010 Jennings v. Owens, No. 09-50047 In an action claiming that officials from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice committed procedural due process violations after the Board of Pardons and Paroles imposed sex offender special conditions on plaintiff’s parole, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where, because plaintiff was indeed a sex offender, he failed to show that he had a liberty interest that was infringed when the parole board imposed sex offender special conditions on his parole.
Continue reading
In a unanimous 3-0 Decision last Tuesday April 6 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Federal Communication Commission did not have the authority to order Comcast in 2008 to cease and desist interfering with the traffic of Bit Torrent a P2P file sharing service. At the time Comcast ostensibly accepted the order, but ended up appealing the ruling in the courts. The April 6 opinion is the result of that appeal.
As can be expected, reactions have been quick in coming and are quite varied, depending on the perspective and interests of those responding. Some have emphasized the supposedly narrow scope of the ruling attempting to play down its overall importance. Others see it has quite significant, even ground breaking in its scope. For example, will the ruling set a prescedent that allows internet providers to control broadband service as they see fit since it clearly undercuts the FCC’s claim to authority to regulate the internet? What about the FCC’s recently released National Broadband Plan supported by the Obama administration? Many of my fellow libraraians have been looking forward to both participating in and benefiting from this program which contains some provisions related to libraries.? And what about the overarching issues relating to equal treatment for all who use the internet? That not only refers to the “information poor” who often have difficulty getting access under the best of conditions; is could also impact those at the opposite end of this spectrum, eg. Google’s You Tube and Microsoft’s MSN.com?
So many questions, which indicates that this decision really is important with far reaching consequences. Some think this ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but we will need to wait and see. Meanwhile, the FCC has been handed some significant regulatory issues it will need to try to work around. Can they do it. It appears from a statement issued after the ruling that they are prepared to try.
The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan et. al. v. Banc of America Securities et. al. 05 Civ 9016 (SAS)
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court SD New York has found the plaintiffs in the University of Montreal pension fund case to be grossly negligent for lapses in the preservation and collection of responsive electronic documents. The Judge went on to order the plaintiffs, who had attempted to cite the burden argument, to collect data from backup tapes. Her opinion provides useful guidance to attorneys and electronic discovery professionals in their efforts to make sure their clients preserve relevant evidence for use in litigation and avoid sanctions.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
March 29, 2010 – April 2, 2010.
——————————————————————————–
U.S. Supreme Court, March 30, 2010 Berghuis v. Smith, No. 08–1402 In habeas proceedings brought by an individual convicted of second degree murder by an all-white jury, the Sixth Circuit’s reversal of the denial of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where Duren v. Missouri, 439 U. S. 357 (1979), hardly established — much less “clearly” so — that petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community, because petitioner’s evidence gave the Michigan Supreme Court little reason to conclude that the county’s juror assignment order had any significant effect on the representation of African-Americans in the venire.
U.S. Supreme Court, March 31, 2010 Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08–651 In postconviction proceedings arising from a drug distribution prosecution, after which petitioner faced deportation based on his guilty plea and claimed that his counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of the plea, denial of postconviction relief is reversed and remanded where, because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, petitioner sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. ..
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2010 US v. Charlton, No. 08-1797 Defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act are affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to establish that the government purposely discriminated against African-Americans in exercising its peremptory challenge against a juror and thus the district court committed no error – clear or plain – in permitting the government’s peremptory challenge against that prospective juror; and 2) the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal. ..
Continue reading
Citing a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on March 1 that a New York state statute that permits stiffer sentences for persistent felony offenders violates defendant’s constitutional rights. In the ruling Judge Ralph K. Winter wrote:
“We hold that the Sixth Amendment Right to a jury trial, applicable to the states as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the type of judicial fact finding resulting in enhanced sentences under New York’s {Persistent Felony Offender] statute.”
Reporting on the decision in the April 1, 2010 New York Law Journal Joel Stqashenko writes, “The immediate effect of yesterday’s ruling was not clear. Second Circuit rulings on New York law are not binding on the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. The federal panel did not, howeverk that state court rulings upholding the constitutionality of the persistent felony offencer statute have been ‘unreasonable’ in light of seemingly contrary U.S. Supreme Court decisions in similar cases.”
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries arU.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 03, 2010 Janosky v. St. Amand, No. 09-1012 District court’s denial of defendant’s petition for habeas relief in a case arising out of an armed robbery gone awry is affirmed where: 1) defendant is barred from litigating his procedurally defaulted jury instruction claim; 2) defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is rejected; and 3) defendant did not present his Sixth Amendment claim regarding a scrap of paper seized from a vehicle fairly and recognizably to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. .
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 03, 2010 Abrante v. St. Amand, No. 09-1020 Denial of defendant’s petition for habeas relief following conviction of armed robbery and related crimes is affirmed where: 1) defendant has not offered clear and convincing evidence that the state established agency relationships with inmate informants who then elicited admissions from him without the presence of counsel in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; 2) defendant’s due process claim fails; 3) defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is rejected; and 4) the issues defendant raises do not present the court with opportunity to consider his constitutional challenge to the AEDPA. .
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2010 Estrada v. State of Rhode Island, No. 09-1149 In plaintiffs’ action challenging the constitutionality of the actions of a police officer during a traffic stop, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) the officer is entitled to federal and state qualified immunity for any possible constitutional violations that he may have committed in asking the van’s passengers questions about their immigration status and in contacting ICE; 2) the officer is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged violations of state or federal laws surrounding the seizure of plaintiffs and their subsequent escort to ICE office; 3) officer is entitled to qualified immunity for both pat down searches under federal and state law; and 4) the officer is entitled to qualified immunity for all of the challenged actions with respect to the Rhode Island Racial Profiling Prevention Act e produced by Findlaw Continue reading
Criminal Law Library Blog