Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Shana L. Jarmer was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) after failing a breath alcohol test. At the time of the arrest, Jarmer was in the driver's seat of a vehicle stuck in a muddy ditch. Despite her efforts to move the vehicle, it remained stationary due to the muddy conditions. Following her arrest, Jarmer was notified that her driving privileges would be suspended by the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDR) under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 8-1014. Jarmer challenged the suspension, arguing that she was merely attempting to operate the vehicle, not actually operating it, as the vehicle was not moving.The KDR upheld the suspension, finding that Jarmer was operating the vehicle. Jarmer sought judicial review of this decision in Sumner County District Court, which denied her petition, agreeing with the KDR that Jarmer was operating the vehicle since the engine was running, she was behind the wheel, and the tires were spinning. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Jarmer operated the vehicle because she caused it to function or work when she engaged the transmission and pressed the gas pedal.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that to "operate" a vehicle means to "drive" it, which requires motion on the part of the vehicle. The court found that while Jarmer unquestionably attempted to operate the vehicle, her car did not move, despite her best efforts. Therefore, it was factually impossible for Jarmer to "move"—and, under the court's precedent, "operate"—the vehicle. The court concluded that Jarmer's unsuccessful effort to drive her car out of a muddy ditch fails to satisfy K.S.A. 8-1002(a)(2)(A)'s requirement that she was "operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both." The court reversed the suspension of Jarmer's driver's license and remanded the matter to the KDR for further proceedings. View "Jarmer v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

The case involves an action filed by Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Lawrence Haskell against Jilma Meneses, the secretary of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). The Prosecutor sought a writ of mandamus directing Meneses to comply with statutory duties under chapter 10.77 RCW and timely provide competency services in criminal proceedings. The case specifically concerned three categories of Spokane County defendants in felony criminal proceedings ordered to receive competency services from DSHS.Previously, a class action was filed in federal court, challenging DSHS's delays in providing competency services to criminal defendants in pretrial custody. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held these delays violated the class members’ due process rights and issued a permanent injunction against DSHS. The injunction set strict time limits for providing competency services to defendants in pretrial custody, appointed a special court monitor, and began oversight of DSHS’s efforts to comply with the injunction.In the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, DSHS argued that the court must dismiss the petition for lack of original jurisdiction because the secretary is not a state officer within the meaning of the state constitution. The court agreed with DSHS, concluding that the secretary is not a state officer. The court reasoned that a state officer must be elected, subject to impeachment, and granted a State sovereign power, none of which applied to the secretary. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus. View "Spokane County v. Meneses" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Joshua Aldridge, who was found guilty of conspiracy to sex traffic an adult by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion, among other charges. Aldridge and his girlfriend, Kathy, were both addicted to painkillers and sought out higher-dosage pills from Larry Dean Porter. When they could not afford to purchase pills with money, Porter would allow them to have the pills as long as they agreed to pay him later. Eventually, Kathy was informed that she could “work off” the debt by “cleaning and doing sexual favors.” Aldridge would regularly drive Kathy to Porter’s house, take his pill, leave Kathy at the house, and return to pick her up when she was finished.The district court denied Aldridge's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal on the adult-sex-trafficking-by-force conspiracy charge. The court reasoned that a jury could find that Aldridge had personally coerced Kathy to buy pills in exchange for sex acts. The jury found Aldridge guilty on all three counts. At sentencing, the district judge applied two enhancements over Aldridge’s objections: the enhancement for use of a computer to entice or offer and the vulnerable-victim enhancement.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Aldridge challenged the district court’s denial of his Rule 29 motion and the district court’s application of two sentencing enhancements. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Aldridge knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy with intent to further its objective. The court also found that the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancements. View "United States v. Aldridge" on Justia Law

The case involves Katrina Robinson, founder and director of The Healthcare Institute (THI), a for-profit company in Memphis, Tennessee, that provided certified nursing assistant training. THI received a federal grant from the Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program (GWEP), administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), from 2015 to 2019. The grant provided scholarships for eligible THI students. Robinson was convicted of four counts of wire fraud for actions she took in administering the grant. The district court granted Robinson's post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal on two of the counts, and Robinson appealed the denial of acquittal on the remaining two counts.The district court's decision was based on a federal investigation that raised concerns about Robinson's use of HRSA grant funds for personal expenses and discrepancies in Annual Performance Reports (APRs) that Robinson had submitted on THI’s behalf. The APRs contained inaccurate information on the number of students who graduated from the program, the number of students who received grant-funded scholarships, and the unique numerical identifiers assigned to students. The government argued that these "errors" were intentional manipulations by Robinson to ensure THI’s continued receipt of grant funds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Robinson's submission of false information in the APRs constituted a course of conduct intended to deprive the government of money. The court also found that Robinson's intent to defraud was demonstrated by her direct involvement in preparing and submitting the APRs, and her direction to charge personal wedding expenses to the grant. The court reversed the district court's grant of acquittal on one of the counts, finding that a rational juror could conclude that Robinson's transmission of materially false information was done to induce HRSA to continue funding the grant. The court affirmed the district court's denial of acquittal on the remaining two counts. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The case involves Carl Hubbard, who was convicted of first-degree murder in Michigan state court in 1992. Over two decades later, Hubbard filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that he is entitled to an equitable exception to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (AEDPA) time bar based on a credible showing of actual innocence. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Hubbard argued that he had new evidence that impeached the State’s case against him, but he failed to present evidence affirmatively demonstrating his actual innocence. The court held that AEDPA does not permit him to file an untimely habeas petition. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that Hubbard's new evidence did not meet the burden of showing that the State had imprisoned an innocent person. Therefore, Hubbard must comply with the same law with which all other habeas petitioners must comply. View "Hubbard v. Rewerts" on Justia Law

The case involves Hattie Tanner, who was convicted of murder and served seventeen years in prison before her conviction was set aside due to insufficient evidentiary support. After her release, Tanner filed a lawsuit against David Walters, a retired police detective, alleging that he violated her constitutional rights by falsifying investigation reports and providing false testimony, leading to her wrongful conviction. Walters sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which the district court partially granted and partially denied. The court allowed Tanner's claims for fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution to proceed to trial. Walters appealed this decision.Previously, the district court found that Tanner's claims for fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution should proceed to trial. Walters appealed this decision, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Walters knowingly fabricated evidence against Tanner, and thus he was not entitled to qualified immunity on Tanner's fabrication-of-evidence claim. The court also found that a reasonable jury could find that Walters's false statements influenced the decision to charge Tanner, and that without these false statements, there would not have been probable cause to prosecute Tanner. Therefore, Walters was not entitled to qualified immunity on Tanner's malicious prosecution claim. View "Tanner v. Walters" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a plaintiff who was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The arresting officer prepared a report of the incident and mailed it to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), but not within the three business days required by statute. At the plaintiff's license suspension hearing, the plaintiff's attorney objected to the admission of the report on the grounds that it was not prepared and mailed within the statutory timeframe. The hearing officer overruled the objection and admitted the report, which was the only evidence submitted at the hearing.The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, concluding that strict adherence to the preparation and mailing requirement was not necessary for the report to be admissible. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the preparation and mailing requirement is directory, and therefore, strict compliance with that requirement is not necessary for a report to be admissible at a license suspension hearing.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the Appellate Court's judgment. The court held that the hearing officer abused her discretion in admitting an incident report that did not strictly comply with the preparation and mailing provision of the statute in the absence of testimony from the arresting officer. The court concluded that the preparation and mailing requirement was mandatory because it promoted the accuracy and reliability of the information that would be used at a license suspension hearing. The court clarified that the statute describes substantive requirements that incident reports must meet, and the failure to meet those requirements renders a report inadmissible insofar as it fails to satisfy the exception for the report to be admitted without the need to produce the arresting officer at the suspension hearing. View "Marshall v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the interpretation of Minnesota Statutes section 171.177, subdivision 1, which requires law enforcement officers to inform individuals suspected of driving under the influence that refusal to submit to a blood or urine test is a crime. The respondent, Brian Matthew Nash, was pulled over for suspected impaired driving. After failing field sobriety tests, he was arrested and a state trooper obtained a search warrant for a blood or urine test. The trooper informed Nash that refusal to take a test is a crime, and Nash complied. His blood test revealed the presence of a controlled substance, leading to the revocation of his driving privileges.Nash sought judicial review of his license revocation, arguing that the trooper's advisory did not comply with the statutory requirement. The district court rejected Nash's arguments and sustained the revocation. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed, finding that the advisory given to Nash was misleading and an inaccurate statement of law.The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeals' interpretation of the statute. The court held that the trooper's statement that "refusal to take a test is a crime" satisfied the advisory required by section 171.177, subdivision 1. The court reasoned that the statute does not require officers to inform drivers of all the elements and permutations of what is required before the state may take adverse action against them. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for consideration of the other issues raised by Nash in his appeal. View "Nash v. Commissioner of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Elden Don Brannan was living with his sister and her three children in Corpus Christi, Texas. In 2022, Brannan's sister called 911 to report that Brannan had assaulted her boyfriend and was threatening suicide. She informed the police that Brannan had a "pipe bomb" in his bedroom closet. The bomb squad removed the device and Brannan was arrested. He was later indicted by a grand jury for possessing an unregistered "destructive device" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). His sister testified that Brannan had built the device from disassembled fireworks. Brannan's defense was that the device was not an explosive but a "makeshift roman-candle or fountain firework" designed to emit a pyrotechnic display.Brannan was found guilty by a federal jury. He moved for acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show he had designed the device as a weapon. These motions were denied. Brannan also requested the court to instruct the jury that to convict him under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), it had to find he had intentionally designed the device for use as a weapon. The court rejected this proposed instruction, reasoning that Brannan's intent to design the device as a weapon was not an element of the offense but an affirmative defense. The jury found Brannan guilty and he was sentenced to 24 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brannan argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him and that the jury instruction omitted an element of the offense. The court disagreed, affirming Brannan's conviction. The court held that under its binding precedent, the exception to § 5861(d) is an affirmative defense, not an element of the crime. Therefore, the government did not need to prove that the device was "designed for use as a weapon." The court also concluded that the district court did not err by following the circuit’s pattern instructions and declining to add "designed as a weapon" as an element of § 5861(d). View "United States v. Brannan" on Justia Law

In May 2020, Austin River Keller drove his car into a ditch and subsequently failed a breath alcohol test. The Kitsap County District Court suppressed the breath alcohol test results produced from the Dräger Alcotest 9510 machines in Keller’s case and in all other DUI cases in Kitsap County District Court. The district court concluded that the breath test results violated state statutes and regulations. The district court found that state law places strict limits on the admission of breath test results into evidence. The court also found that the Dräger machine had never rounded the mean before calculating the plus or minus 10 percent range, as required by state regulations. Instead, the Dräger was programmed to truncate the mean before performing that calculation. The district court ruled that the machine’s failure to do those necessary mathematical calculations itself rendered the results invalid and inadmissible under state law and court precedent.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the relevant statutes and regulations do not require the Dräger machine itself to perform the mean and the plus or minus 10 percent range calculation at the time of the test. The court found that the State could establish those required pieces of the foundation for admission of breath test results by doing the math discussed above in a different manner. The court reversed the district court’s evidentiary rulings and suppression order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "State v. Keller" on Justia Law