Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

On December 19, 2023, Lee Meiers was arrested for driving under the influence. The arresting officer read Meiers the implied consent advisory and conducted a chemical breath test, which showed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The officer completed and certified a report and notice form, printed and signed the test record and checklist, and provided copies to Meiers and the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). However, the officer did not certify the test record and checklist before forwarding it to the NDDOT.Meiers requested an administrative hearing, where he objected to the admission of the uncertified test record and checklist, arguing that it was not certified as required by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1, and thus the NDDOT lacked authority to suspend his driving privileges. The hearing officer overruled the objection, admitted the test record and checklist, and suspended Meiers’s driving privileges for 180 days. Meiers appealed to the District Court of Mountrail County, which reversed the hearing officer’s decision, concluding that a certified copy of the test record and checklist was required to invoke the NDDOT’s authority.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the requirement in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4) for the test record and checklist to be certified is not a basic and mandatory provision that impacts the NDDOT’s authority to suspend a driver’s privileges. The court emphasized that the certification requirement is for evidentiary purposes and can be accomplished through other means. Therefore, the NDDOT had the authority to suspend Meiers’s driving privileges despite the lack of certification on the test record and checklist. The Supreme Court reinstated the NDDOT’s decision to suspend Meiers’s driving privileges. View "Meiers v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

In 2015, Jesus Rodriguez-Morelos began offering Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) classes, falsely claiming they were affiliated with the nonprofit organization United with Migrants. He charged students for these classes, which were not state-approved, and used the nonprofit's name and tax-exempt document without authorization. Complaints about the classes led to an investigation by the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA), revealing that Rodriguez-Morelos was unlawfully receiving money for the unapproved classes.Rodriguez-Morelos was charged with several crimes, including identity theft under section 18-5-902(1)(a), C.R.S. (2024). A jury convicted him on all charges. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the theft and criminal impersonation convictions but vacated the identity theft conviction. The court concluded that the identity theft statute's definition of "personal identifying information" pertains to individuals, not organizations, and thus did not apply to Rodriguez-Morelos's use of the nonprofit's name and document.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the identity theft statute's reference to "personal identifying information" applies only to information concerning single, identified human beings, not organizations. Therefore, Rodriguez-Morelos's actions did not constitute identity theft under the statute. View "People v. Rodriguez-Morelos" on Justia Law

Two state forensic chemists in Massachusetts tampered with drug evidence and falsified test results, affecting tens of thousands of drug cases. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) vacated over 30,000 criminal cases due to this misconduct. The SJC ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment, affected individuals were entitled to the repayment of most funds collected due to their vacated convictions but not the automatic return of forfeited property. Instead, individuals had to file motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.The plaintiffs, whose criminal convictions were vacated, sought a federal court order for the automatic return of their forfeited property and related relief. The Commonwealth defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits suits in federal court against a state by its own citizens. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the complaint in part, ruling that it could not order the automatic return of forfeited property but allowed other claims to proceed under the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the Eleventh Amendment bars all the relief sought by the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims focused on a past wrong, and the Ex parte Young exception applies only to prospective relief against ongoing violations of federal law. Additionally, the state officials sued lacked the authority to enforce or change the state court procedures. The court reversed the district court's partial denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case in full. View "Cotto v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The petitioner pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree sodomy and was sentenced to 60 months in prison for Count 1, 100 months for Count 3, and 100 months for Count 5, with the sentences for Counts 3 and 5 to be served consecutively. The trial court also imposed terms of post-prison supervision (PPS) for each count, calculated as 240 months minus the term of imprisonment served for each count. The petitioner completed his prison terms and was released in April 2016.The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision calculated the PPS terms by subtracting the time served for each count from the 240-month maximum, resulting in 180 months for Count 1 and 140 months for Counts 3 and 5. The petitioner argued that the "term of imprisonment served" should be the total time served for all counts, which would result in a shorter PPS term. The board rejected this argument, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the board's decision.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the "term of imprisonment served" in ORS 144.103 refers to the time spent in prison for the specific count of conviction, not the total time served for all counts. The court also concluded that the PPS term begins when the offender is released into the community, not while still incarcerated on other counts. Therefore, the court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. View "Kragt v. Board of Parole" on Justia Law

The petitioner was charged with first-degree murder. During the investigation, the prosecution informed the defense that one of the investigating officers had a sustained finding of dishonesty, and the officer’s department intended to release related records under Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The defense counsel requested these records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Concurrently, the petitioner filed a Pitchess motion seeking additional Brady material from the officer’s personnel file. The trial court, after an in-camera review, found no additional Brady material and ordered the disclosure of the records related to the officer’s dishonesty, but issued a protective order limiting their dissemination.The petitioner sought an extraordinary writ of mandate to vacate the protective order, arguing that the records were nonconfidential and subject to public inspection under section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The trial court had issued the protective order under Evidence Code section 1045(e), which restricts the use of disclosed records to the court proceeding.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court noted that Senate Bill No. 1421 amended sections 832.7 and 832.8 to make certain law enforcement personnel records, including those involving sustained findings of dishonesty, nonconfidential and subject to public disclosure. The court held that the trial court should not have issued a protective order for records that are nonconfidential under section 832.7(b)(1)(C). Consequently, the appellate court granted the petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its protective order concerning the records of the officer’s sustained finding of dishonesty. View "Banuelos v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Leonardo Garcia filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, seeking relief from his convictions for second-degree murder and attempted premeditated murder. The trial court found Garcia had made a prima facie case for relief, issued an order to show cause, and set an evidentiary hearing. Garcia's counsel subpoenaed the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for contact information of two witnesses, but the trial court granted the LAPD's motion to quash, ruling that section 1172.6 did not allow for postconviction discovery. Garcia then filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging this decision.The trial court had previously found Garcia guilty of first-degree murder and other charges, but on appeal, his first-degree murder conviction was reversed due to a change in the law, and his sentence was reduced to second-degree murder. Garcia's subsequent petitions for resentencing were initially denied, but his third petition led to the current proceedings. The trial court's decision to quash the subpoena was based on the belief that the evidentiary hearing should be limited to the facts presented at trial.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and concluded that section 1172.6 allows for postconviction discovery after an order to show cause is issued. The court held that denying Garcia the ability to obtain relevant evidence would thwart his right to present or respond to new or additional evidence at the evidentiary hearing. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion by preventing Garcia from obtaining contact information for the witnesses, which could be crucial for his defense against new theories of liability. The appellate court granted Garcia's petition for a writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting the LAPD's motion to quash and to issue a new order denying the motion. View "Garcia v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The petitioners, including The Gazette and the Invisible Institute, sought records from the Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST) regarding peace officer demographics, certification, and decertification. They argued that these records should be disclosed under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). POST countered that the records were criminal justice records governed by the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA), which allows the custodian discretion in disclosing records.The Denver District Court agreed with POST, concluding that POST is a criminal justice agency under the CCJRA and that the requested records were criminal justice records. The court found that POST's activities, such as conducting criminal background checks and investigating officers, qualified it as a criminal justice agency. The court held that the custodian did not abuse her discretion in partially denying the records requests due to concerns about officer safety and ongoing investigations.The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, albeit on slightly different grounds. The appellate court concluded that POST is a criminal justice agency because it collects and stores arrest and criminal records information when it revokes a peace officer's certification.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that POST qualifies as a criminal justice agency because it performs activities directly related to the detection or investigation of crime. This includes conducting criminal investigations into officers and applicants suspected of criminal offenses. Consequently, the CCJRA governs the records requested by the petitioners, allowing the custodian discretion in their disclosure. View "The Gazette v. Bourgerie" on Justia Law

The case involves Lori Ann Wiley, who, along with Charles Wallace Hanson, engaged in a verbal altercation at a Kern High School District (KHSD) high school. The incident began when a school employee blocked a handicap parking spot they intended to use. Wiley later submitted a written complaint about the incident to the school. Subsequently, KHSD police officer Michael Whiting recommended various misdemeanor charges against Wiley, leading to her being cited and a prosecutor filing a criminal complaint with three misdemeanor charges. After a mistrial, the court dismissed Wiley’s charges in the interest of justice.Wiley sued KHSD police officers Edward Komin, Michael Whiting, Luis Peña, and Steven Alvidrez, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. She brought causes of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Bane Act, and common law torts for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to Wiley’s causes of action in the second amended complaint on multiple grounds without leave to amend and granted a motion to strike Wiley’s punitive damages allegations without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. The appellate court held that Wiley failed to adequately plead her claims under section 1983 for malicious/retaliatory prosecution and abuse of process, as well as her claims under the Bane Act. The court also found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that Wiley did not sufficiently allege facts to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. However, the court granted Wiley leave to amend her section 1983 claim but denied leave to amend her other causes of action. The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the motion to strike without leave to amend. View "Wiley v. Kern High School District" on Justia Law

Blake Jeffreys was arrested during a sting operation after unknowingly communicating with an undercover police officer and arranging to meet at a hotel for sex in exchange for $120. On May 14, 2021, Jeffreys pled guilty to promoting human trafficking. The Jefferson Circuit Court sentenced him to one year in prison, probated for five years, and ordered him to pay a $10,000 fee under KRS 529.130. Jeffreys requested the trial court waive the payment under KRS 534.030(4), but the court declined. Jeffreys appealed, arguing the fee was an unconstitutional excessive fine and should be waived.The Court of Appeals rejected Jeffreys' arguments and affirmed the trial court's decision. Jeffreys sought discretionary review from the Kentucky Supreme Court, focusing solely on the argument that the fee should be waived. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted the motion for review.The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that KRS 529.130 imposes a human trafficking victims service fee, not a fine, and is not subject to waiver under KRS 534.030(4). The court also found that KRS 453.190, which defines a "poor person" for the purpose of waiving court costs, does not apply to the fee imposed under KRS 529.130. However, the court noted that Jeffreys could seek a show cause hearing under KRS 534.020(3)(a)1 to potentially reduce or waive the payment based on his ability to pay. The court emphasized that the trial court should consider various factors, including the defendant's financial status and dependents, when determining the ability to pay. View "JEFFREYS V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

Donald Blazer was involved in a vehicle accident and voluntarily submitted to a preliminary breath test (PBT), which showed a blood alcohol content of .102 percent. However, he refused to submit to a blood draw. The South Dakota Department of Public Safety (Department) notified Blazer of its intent to disqualify his commercial driver’s license (CDL) for life, citing this refusal as a second violation of SDCL 32-12A-36, with the first being a 2014 DUI conviction. Blazer requested an administrative hearing, and the Department affirmed the disqualification of his CDL for life.Blazer appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Department’s decision. The circuit court concluded that Blazer’s voluntary submission to the breath test constituted a submission to a chemical analysis, meaning his refusal to submit to the blood draw could not result in the disqualification of his CDL. The Department then appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s decision. The Court held that under SDCL 32-23-1.2, a preliminary breath test (PBT) is permitted and may be required in addition to a chemical test. The Court determined that Blazer’s refusal to submit to the blood draw constituted a refusal to submit to a chemical analysis as required by SDCL 32-12A-46. This refusal was a second violation under SDCL 32-12A-36, justifying the disqualification of Blazer’s CDL for life under SDCL 32-12A-37. The Court emphasized that a PBT is a preliminary test and does not fulfill the requirement for a chemical analysis under the implied consent laws. View "Blazer v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law