Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this case, law enforcement officers responded to a drug overdose at the home of Corban Elmore. After securing the scene and prohibiting anyone from entering the house, the officers waited almost eight hours before applying for a search warrant. Once they had a warrant, they searched Elmore’s home and discovered two firearms in his bedroom. Elmore, a convicted felon, entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearms.The District Court for the District of Colorado denied Elmore's motion to suppress the firearms, finding no Fourth Amendment violation. The court determined that the officers reasonably seized Elmore’s home because they had probable cause to believe the home contained evidence of drug possession and had good reason to fear that evidence would be destroyed before they could secure a search warrant. The court also concluded that the officers acted reasonably throughout the seizure, finding it appropriate for them to prohibit anyone from entering the home and to delay obtaining a warrant so that the lead detective could focus on his investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the eight-hour seizure of Elmore’s home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the exclusionary rule required suppression of the firearms. The court found that the officers made no effort to reconcile their law-enforcement needs with Elmore’s Fourth Amendment interests in his home and extended the seizure longer than reasonably necessary to diligently secure a warrant. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Elmore" on Justia Law

The case involves Bobby Pena, who pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. He reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress child pornography that was recovered on his devices pursuant to a search warrant. Pena argued that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based did not present probable cause and that the federal agents did not act in good faith in executing the search warrant. He also argued that in the absence of probable cause and good faith, evidence of child pornography would not have been inevitably discovered on his electronic devices.The district court denied Pena's motion to suppress, concluding that the magistrate judge had a substantial factual basis to find probable cause. The court found that the file and folder names observed by Agent Kucenski indicated the presence of child pornography. The court also concluded that Pena's suspicious statements to officers supported a finding of probable cause. The court found that Pena's practices with his digital devices and Agent Kucenski's declarations regarding the practices of child pornography collectors supported a finding of probable cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not err in finding that the affidavit established probable cause and provided a sufficient basis for the search warrant. The court also declined to remand Pena's fraud procurement case for resentencing. View "United States v. Pena" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Kimberly Graham, who was convicted for first-degree manslaughter and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. After her convictions became final, she applied for postconviction relief, arguing that she was a Native American and the events took place on a reservation. The state district court granted her relief and vacated her convictions based on the Supreme Court's ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Native Americans within a reservation. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals later overruled the precedent that allowed for the application of McGirt to convictions that had already become final. Consequently, the state district court reinstated Graham's convictions.Graham then sought a writ of prohibition from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that a liberty interest had arisen from the order vacating her convictions. The court denied her request, stating that the new precedent prevented the application of McGirt to convictions that had become final and that the initial order vacating the convictions was unauthorized under Oklahoma law. Graham then sought habeas relief, claiming that the reinstatement of her convictions had arbitrarily stripped her of her liberty interest. The federal district court agreed with Graham and granted habeas relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of habeas relief. The court held that regardless of whether the state appeals court had erred, its rejection of the due process claim was at least reasonable based on the facts and Supreme Court precedent. The court concluded that the state appeals court did not unreasonably determine the facts or apply a Supreme Court holding. Therefore, the federal district court should have deferred to the state appeals court. View "Graham v. White" on Justia Law

The case involves a lawsuit filed by the parents of Shamikle Jackson against four police officers for using unconstitutionally excessive force. Jackson had called 911, claiming that two people were dead inside an apartment and that he was holding others hostage. When the police arrived, they encountered Jackson's sister who informed them that Jackson was alone, unarmed, and might have mental health problems. However, as the officers proceeded to search the apartment, Jackson emerged from a bedroom with a machete and was shot and killed by the officers.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the officers recklessly created the need to use deadly force, thereby unreasonably violating Jackson's constitutional rights under clearly established law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that the officers had a split second to respond to a deadly threat posed by Jackson. Under these circumstances, it was not clearly established that the officers recklessly created a situation where the use of deadly force was necessary. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also rejected the claim that the other officers failed to intervene to prevent the violation of Jackson's rights, as there was no underlying constitutional violation. View "Flores v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Mr. Lyndell Daniels, who was detained by law enforcement officers who linked him to a stolen Glock firearm based on his name. Daniels was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Daniels moved to suppress his name as the fruit of an unlawful investigative detention, arguing that the officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain him. The district court agreed with Daniels and granted his motion. The government appealed this decision, arguing that the district court erred because there was reasonable suspicion to detain Daniels.The case originated from a near-anonymous call to the Aurora Police Department, expressing concern about three Black men, wearing dark hoodies and jeans, intermittently taking guns in and out of their pockets and getting in and out of a dark SUV. The caller believed they were “getting ready to do something,” but reported no illegality. The police arrived at the scene and detained Daniels, who was standing near the SUV. The officers did not observe any illegal activity or firearms when they arrived.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the totality of the circumstances known to the officer when he detained Daniels did not amount to reasonable suspicion. The court noted that the 911 call, the presence and actions of the SUV, the time of the encounter, and the location of the encounter were not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that Daniels' detention was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court's grant of Daniels' motion to suppress was proper. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of employees and students at the University of Colorado Anschutz Campus who challenged the university's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The plaintiffs, identified as Jane Does 1-11 and John Does 1, 3-7, argued that the university's policies regarding religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate violated their First Amendment rights.The university initially allowed individuals to attest to their exemption based on religious beliefs using a simple form. However, in August 2021, the university implemented a new policy that required individuals seeking a religious exemption to provide additional information about their religious beliefs and to demonstrate that their religion opposes all immunizations. The university denied all of the plaintiffs' requests for religious exemptions under this policy and enforced the vaccine mandate against them.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against the university's policies. The district court denied their motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the university's policies were not neutral or generally applicable and were likely motivated by religious animus. The court held that the policies violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and were subject to strict scrutiny, which they did not survive. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the university's policies. View "Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado" on Justia Law

The case involves Douglas Smith, a non-Indian, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for an act he committed on his property located within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo of Santa Clara. Smith shot and killed Maria Gallegos, who he saw trying to break into a trailer on his property. Prior to trial, Smith moved to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing that the federal district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on his property and that Congress acted outside its constitutional authority when it passed the Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005. The district court denied his motion.Smith's case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court had to decide whether federal criminal jurisdiction extends to land owned by a non-Indian within the exterior boundaries of a Pueblo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Smith's property is Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, and therefore, his crime is subject to federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152.Smith also claimed that the 2005 Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to him. The court disagreed, holding that the 2005 Amendment did not unconstitutionally extend federal criminal jurisdiction to Smith's land. The court reasoned that the 2005 Amendment only exercised preexisting federal jurisdiction over Smith's land and was thus not an unconstitutional enactment as applied to Smith.Lastly, Smith contended that the district court erred in declining his request for a two-level sentence reduction for accepting responsibility for his crime. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's determination, noting that Smith had challenged the factual element of intent at trial, which provided a clear basis to conclude that he did not accept responsibility. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Adam Lowther and his wife, Jessica Lowther, who sued various state officials on behalf of themselves and their children, alleging constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The claims arose from the warrantless entry into their home, the arrest of Dr. Lowther, and the removal of their children by officials from New Mexico’s Children, Youth, and Family Department (CYFD) and the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department (BCSD). The actions of the officials were based on an anonymous report alleging that Dr. Lowther was sexually abusing his four-year-old daughter.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims and that the state law claims failed for similar reasons. The Lowthers appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the officials had reasonable suspicion that the children had been abused and were in imminent danger, which justified the warrantless entry into the Lowthers' home and the removal of the children. The court also held that the officials had probable cause to arrest Dr. Lowther. Therefore, the officials were entitled to qualified immunity, and the Lowthers' claims were dismissed. View "Lowther v. Children Youth and Family Department" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Sterling Owens, an African American electric lineman, who worked for the Wyandotte County, Kansas Board of Public Utilities (BPU). BPU had a policy requiring all employees to maintain their primary residence in Wyandotte County. Owens, who also owned several properties, was accused of violating this policy. BPU conducted an investigation, which Owens claimed was discriminatory based on his race. He filed a formal workplace discrimination complaint, which led to an internal investigation that found no evidence of harassment or discrimination. Owens then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and was granted the right to sue in federal district court. He filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial. Owens was represented by two attorneys. His first-chair counsel, who had conducted all pretrial litigation, contracted COVID-19 midway through the trial and resorted to remote participation. The jury found BPU not liable on all counts. Owens appealed, asking for the jury’s verdict to be vacated and arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial and new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court emphasized that Owens failed to show he was prejudiced by the district court’s rulings. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Owens' motion for a mistrial and new trial. The court also rejected Owens' argument that his second-chair counsel's relative lack of experience led to prejudicial errors during the trial. The court concluded that Owens had not demonstrated that the alleged errors had a prejudicial impact on his right to a fair and impartial trial. View "Owens v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Patrick Murphy, was convicted of murder, murder in perpetration of kidnapping, and kidnapping resulting in death. The crimes occurred in 1999, but Murphy was not indicted until 2020, following a Supreme Court decision that clarified jurisdictional issues related to crimes committed in Indian Country. Murphy appealed his convictions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping charges, that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the nearly two-decade delay between the murder and the federal prosecution violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with Murphy's argument regarding the kidnapping charges. The court held that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it did not show that Murphy held the victim for an appreciable period of time, which is a requirement under the federal kidnapping statute. However, the court rejected Murphy's other two arguments. The court found that the statute of limitations did not bar the prosecution because the crimes with which Murphy was charged are, as a general matter, punishable by death and thus not subject to the general five-year statute of limitations for non-capital federal crimes. The court also found that Murphy failed to demonstrate that the twenty-year delay in bringing the federal prosecution against him violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.As a result, the court reversed Murphy's kidnapping-related convictions but affirmed his conviction for murder. The case was remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law