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

Andrew Scott, a professional process server and licensed private investigator in Colorado, was hired to serve a subpoena on State Trooper Charles Hiller. The service attempt became contentious, leading Hiller to file complaints against Scott with both the Colorado Office of Private Investigator Licensure and the Process Servers Association of Colorado. Hiller alleged that Scott endangered his safety by including personal information in an affidavit of service, potentially violating Colorado Revised Statute § 18-9-313(2.7), which prohibits publishing law enforcement officers’ personal information online if it poses an imminent and serious threat. The Office of Private Investigator Licensure dismissed its complaint, but the Association expelled Scott, citing a violation of the statute. Scott subsequently created a website, copscore.org, intending to publish information about police misconduct, but refrained from posting content due to fear of prosecution under the statute.Scott filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the local District Attorney, seeking a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing Scott’s complaint on the grounds that he lacked standing for a pre-enforcement challenge. The court found Scott had not demonstrated an injury in fact, reasoning that his conduct was not “arguably proscribed” by the statute, especially since Scott stated in his summary judgment briefing that he did not know of any imminent and serious threat to Hiller’s safety from the intended publication.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Scott had standing to pursue a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge because his intended conduct was at least arguably prohibited by the statute, and the credible threat of prosecution chilled his speech. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits. View "Scott v. Allen" on Justia Law

The defendant, a young man with a history of firearm-related offenses, was previously adjudicated delinquent for shooting at a person, making him a “Category I restricted person” under Utah law and barring him from possessing firearms. Despite this, he was found in possession of a handgun in April 2022 and was charged with a felony for possessing a dangerous weapon as a restricted person. On the day of his arraignment for that charge, he purchased another firearm. Later, in October 2022, he was found with this new firearm after allegedly firing it at a group of people.Following the October incident, a federal grand jury indicted him for illegal receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(n) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, as interpreted by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied his motion, finding that while the Second Amendment presumptively protected his conduct, § 922(n) was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court cited historical laws disarming dangerous groups and surety laws as analogues. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal, and was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(n) de novo. The court held that § 922(n) is facially constitutional, finding it “relevantly similar” to founding-era practices of pretrial detention and bail, which imposed comparable, temporary restrictions on the right to bear arms for those accused of serious crimes. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and upheld the conviction. View "United States v. Ogilvie" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted of knowingly engaging in a sexual act with a minor in Indian Country. The minor was his half-sister, and the sexual relationship began when he was 23 and she was 14, continuing for approximately eight years. After the relationship ended, the defendant was charged and convicted under federal law. At sentencing, the district court determined an adjusted base offense level of 20, which would have resulted in a guideline range of 33 to 41 months. However, the court varied upward, using a guideline range corresponding to a higher offense level, and imposed a 96-month prison sentence. The court also imposed a five-year term of supervised release, including a prohibition on viewing adult pornography.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma imposed the sentence and the supervised release conditions. The defendant appealed, arguing that the 96-month sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the prohibition on adult pornography was not adequately explained and infringed on his constitutional rights. He contended that the district court gave too much weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense, did not sufficiently consider a psychosexual evaluation indicating a low risk of reoffending, and failed to address the risk of unwarranted sentencing disparities. He also challenged the pornography restriction as lacking a compelling justification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, the court held that the 96-month sentence was substantively reasonable given the length and harm of the abuse, and that the district court did not err in weighing the statutory factors. Regarding the pornography restriction, the Tenth Circuit found no plain error because the record supported a basis for the condition, given the defendant’s history and admissions. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Doty" on Justia Law

Kyle Messerli died from acute intoxication after repeatedly inhaling Difluoroethane gas contained in computer duster cans, a practice known as “huffing.” He became addicted to the substance, using multiple cans daily, and ultimately overdosed. His father, Robbin Messerli, acting individually and as representative of Kyle’s estate, sued several manufacturers and distributors of the computer duster products. The lawsuit alleged that the companies knew their products were being abused but failed to take adequate steps to reduce harm, including ineffective warnings and product design changes.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas reviewed the case. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Kansas law bars tort recovery when the plaintiff’s injuries result from their own illegal acts. The district court agreed, finding that the illegality defense—where a plaintiff’s illegal conduct proximately causes their injury—remains valid under Kansas law and was not abrogated by the state’s adoption of comparative fault principles. The court dismissed Messerli’s claims and denied his subsequent motion to certify the question to the Kansas Supreme Court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered whether the illegality defense applies to products liability actions under Kansas law. The court held that the defense is still available, as neither the Kansas Legislature nor the Kansas Supreme Court has abrogated it. The court further determined that Kansas’s comparative fault regime does not implicitly eliminate the illegality defense, which is grounded in public policy against allowing recovery for injuries caused by one’s own illegal acts. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Messerli’s claims. View "Messerli v. AW Distributing" on Justia Law

In October 2022, law enforcement officers stopped and searched a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. During the search, they discovered an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 machinegun, a .357 caliber Glock handgun, and a “Glock switch” device capable of converting a handgun to fire automatically. Video evidence showed the defendant firing a Glock handgun equipped with the switch, operating as a fully automatic weapon. The defendant was subsequently indicted on two counts of knowingly and unlawfully possessing a machinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).The United States District Court for the District of Kansas reviewed the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(o) violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. The district court agreed, finding that both the AM-15 machinegun and the Glock switch were “bearable arms” within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The court further concluded that the government had not demonstrated that § 922(o) was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and therefore dismissed the indictment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the defendant failed to meet his burden under the first step of the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. Specifically, the court found that the defendant did not show that the machineguns he possessed were “arms” in “common use” for self-defense by law-abiding citizens, as required by District of Columbia v. Heller and subsequent precedent. As a result, the Tenth Circuit concluded that § 922(o) is constitutional as applied to the defendant, reversed the dismissal of the indictment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Police officers in Oklahoma conducted a warrantless search of a storage unit rented by an individual whose email and payment information were on the rental agreement, though the agreement was signed by another person. Employees of the storage facility initially entered the unit after finding its door ajar, observing what appeared to be drugs and firearms, and then notified police. Upon arrival, officers looked into the unit, with one officer peeking his head inside to observe suspected contraband, and another officer later entering the unit and opening a drawer before a warrant was obtained. The officers then used their observations to obtain a search warrant for the storage unit, which led to the discovery of drugs and firearms. Based on this evidence, they secured a second warrant to search the renter’s home, where additional contraband was found.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence from both searches, finding no Fourth Amendment violation in the officers’ actions. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to drug and firearm charges, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was sentenced to 188 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the officers’ warrantless entry and search of the storage unit violated the Fourth Amendment. The court determined that, after excising the unconstitutionally obtained information from the search warrant affidavit, the remaining content failed to establish probable cause. The court also found that the good faith exception did not apply because the affidavit was so facially deficient that officers could not reasonably rely on it. Consequently, the evidence from both the storage unit and the home was ordered suppressed. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Blasdel" on Justia Law

Victor Kearney was indicted for filing a false tax return for 2011 and for conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The government alleged that Kearney, with the assistance of his tax attorney, Robert Fiser, failed to report taxable trust income on his tax returns from 2007 to 2011. Fiser, who was both an attorney and a certified public accountant, prepared Kearney’s returns during those years, reporting negative income despite Kearney’s receipt of trust income. At trial, Kearney argued that he relied in good faith on Fiser’s advice and was unaware of his personal tax obligations. The defense also challenged Fiser’s credibility, highlighting his ethical violations and criminal history.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico conducted the trial. The jury convicted Kearney on both counts: filing a false tax return and conspiracy to defraud the United States. The district court sentenced him to 27 months in prison for each count, to run concurrently, and denied his motion for a new trial. Kearney appealed, challenging only his conspiracy conviction. He argued that the district court erred by misinstructing the jury on the elements of conspiracy to defraud and by failing to include the conspiracy charge in the advice-of-counsel instruction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found two plain errors. First, the jury instruction for conspiracy did not require the government to prove that Kearney used deceitful or dishonest means, an essential element of conspiracy to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Second, the advice-of-counsel instruction was limited to the false return charge and did not inform the jury that this defense applied to the conspiracy charge as well. The court held that these errors prejudiced Kearney’s defense, vacated his conspiracy conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kearney" on Justia Law

In 2022, a Colorado town enacted an ordinance restricting most vehicles from entering its pedestrian malls, with certain exceptions, including one for high-volume commercial carriers making frequent deliveries. In 2023, the town amended the ordinance to remove this exception, leaving only a provision allowing a town-approved contractor to deliver goods in the pedestrian areas. The Colorado Motor Carriers Association, representing trucking companies, challenged the amended ordinance, arguing it was preempted by federal law, and sought a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted a preliminary injunction against the amended ordinance, finding the Association was likely to succeed on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm. However, the court declined to enjoin the original ordinance, reasoning that the Association had not demonstrated irreparable injury, particularly given its delay in bringing suit after the original ordinance had been in effect for over a year. Both parties appealed: the town challenged the injunction against the amended ordinance, while the Association cross-appealed the denial of relief against the original ordinance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. It held that the amended ordinance likely fell within the federal statutory safety exceptions, as it regulated with respect to motor vehicles and was genuinely responsive to safety concerns, based on legislative intent and a logical nexus to pedestrian safety. The court found the district court had erred in concluding the Association was likely to succeed on the merits and thus abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. Regarding the original ordinance, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the Association’s delay in seeking relief undercut its claim of irreparable harm. The court reversed the injunction against the amended ordinance and remanded with instructions to dissolve it, while affirming the denial of relief as to the original ordinance. View "Colorado Motor v. Town of Vail" on Justia Law

A 17-year-old defendant was charged with ten serious offenses, including murder and assault, after a violent confrontation at the home of his rivals. The incident stemmed from a feud with a classmate and escalated when the defendant, accompanied by his family, armed himself and attacked the victims’ home. The attack resulted in the death of one individual and severe injuries to others. The defendant, an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, was charged under federal law for crimes committed within the Cherokee Nation Indian Reservation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma first reviewed the case. The government moved to transfer the defendant from juvenile to adult criminal proceedings under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge recommended granting the transfer, and the district court adopted this recommendation after conducting a de novo review. The district court weighed the statutory factors, including the defendant’s age, social background, psychological maturity, prior delinquency record, past treatment efforts, and the availability of rehabilitative programs, and found that most factors favored transfer to adult status.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the statutory transfer factors and found no clear error in its factual findings. The court also rejected the defendant’s Eighth Amendment argument that transfer was unconstitutional due to the potential punishments, holding that the challenge was unripe under circuit precedent. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order transferring the defendant to adult criminal proceedings. View "United States v. J.D.V., Jr." on Justia Law

A man was stopped by police in Lawton, Oklahoma, for a traffic violation. During the stop, officers smelled marijuana and, after searching his car, found a loaded revolver and various marijuana products. The man did not have a medical marijuana card and was arrested on state charges for marijuana possession, paraphernalia, and a traffic offense. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The district court found that the Second Amendment’s text covered the defendant’s conduct and held that applying § 922(g)(3) to non-intoxicated marijuana users was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court reasoned that historical regulations only permitted disarming those who had acted dangerously in the past, not those merely believed to pose a risk of future danger. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi clarified the methodology for Second Amendment challenges, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the historical tradition supports disarming individuals believed to pose a risk of future danger, not just those who have acted dangerously before. However, the appellate court found that the government must show that non-intoxicated marijuana users pose such a risk. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the government can meet this burden. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law