Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Roland Riemers, was found guilty of disorderly conduct by a jury after he pursued a train that was blocking a street for longer than twenty minutes, a violation of a city ordinance. Riemers parked his car near the tracks, approached the train, informed the employees of the violation, and ignited a road flare. Both Riemers and the train employees called the police, and Riemers was subsequently charged.Riemers transferred his case from the Grand Forks Municipal Court to the District Court for a jury trial. He was found guilty of disorderly conduct under the Grand Forks City Code. Riemers appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to procedural errors, that he should have been prosecuted under state law rather than city ordinance, and that the court erred by not instructing the jury about the right to conduct a citizen's arrest. He also argued that no victim was identified and that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the district court did not lack jurisdiction, as the city was not required to serve the criminal information on Riemers. The court also ruled that Riemers could be prosecuted under city ordinance, as the city's disorderly conduct ordinance did not supersede state law. The court rejected Riemers' argument about the right to conduct a citizen's arrest, as he had waived any claim of error by expressing satisfaction with the jury instructions. The court also found that the criminal information was sufficient to protect Riemers from a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Finally, the court declined to review Riemers' argument about the sufficiency of the evidence, as he had not moved for a judgment of acquittal at trial. View "City of Grand Forks v. Riemers" on Justia Law

The case involves Jay Jelinek, who was appealing an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and challenging evidentiary rulings made by the district court during his trial. Jelinek was found by a North Dakota Game and Fish Department Warden in a field during deer hunting season. The Warden recognized Jelinek from previous encounters and knew that his hunting privileges were suspended. Jelinek was replacing batteries in a trail camera and stated that he had been sitting in a deer stand with his wife, who had a deer tag, earlier that day. Jelinek moved to suppress evidence gathered during his encounter with the Warden, arguing that he was unlawfully seized and that the Warden did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.The District Court of Grand Forks County denied Jelinek's motion to suppress, finding that he was not subject to an improper seizure prior to his arrest and that the Warden had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Jelinek also argued that the court erred in denying his motion for acquittal on one count, as the State's only evidence of guilt was his own statements. He further argued that the court erred in allowing evidence of his criminal history to go to the jury and that his 6th Amendment rights were violated.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found that the district court did not err in denying Jelinek's motion to suppress, as there was sufficient evidence supporting the district court's findings that Jelinek was not unlawfully seized. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying Jelinek's motion for acquittal, as there was substantial independent evidence establishing the trustworthiness of Jelinek's statements to law enforcement. However, the court found that the district court erred in allowing Jelinek's criminal history to be considered by the jury after one count was dismissed. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Jelinek" on Justia Law

The case involves Jay Diamond, who was convicted of impersonating a federal officer in an attempt to avoid a speeding ticket and to avoid being arrested for falsely impersonating a federal officer. The incidents occurred when Diamond was pulled over for speeding and he told the officer that he was an air marshal. He presented a badge that read "United States Federal Air Marshal." However, upon investigation, it was found that Diamond was never employed as a federal air marshal or through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).In the lower courts, Diamond argued that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he acted as a federal officer and that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his alleged prior bad acts and in instructing the jury. The district court denied Diamond's motion to exclude his ex-wife's testimony about his prior instances of impersonating a federal officer or military member. The court also denied Diamond's request for a jury instruction on the misdemeanor offense in 18 U.S.C. § 701, which Diamond argued was a lesser included offense of his alleged § 912 crime.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Diamond's convictions were affirmed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Diamond’s § 912 convictions. The court also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Diamond's ex-wife's testimony. Furthermore, the court found that 18 U.S.C. § 701 is not a lesser included offense of § 912, and therefore the district court did not err in refusing to give Diamond's requested § 701 instruction. View "United States v. Diamond" on Justia Law

The case involves Gerardo Farias-Contreras, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and heroin. As part of the plea agreement, the government agreed to dismiss two other charges and not to recommend a sentence exceeding the low-end of the guideline range. Farias-Contreras argued for a six-level reduction in the base offense level, resulting in a guidelines range of 108–135 months, citing his many physical disabilities. The government, after reducing the base offense level by three levels, calculated a guidelines range of 151–188 months and recommended a 151-month term.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington sentenced Farias-Contreras to 188 months' imprisonment, citing substantially the facts and argument presented by the government. Farias-Contreras appealed, arguing that the government implicitly breached its promise under the plea agreement not to recommend a sentence in excess of the low-end of the sentencing guidelines range when the government implicitly urged the district court to impose a harsher sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence. The court found that the government's conduct crossed the line from permissible advocacy to an improper end-run of the plea agreement, thus implicitly breaching its promise not to recommend a sentence in excess of the low-end of the calculated guideline range. However, the court concluded that the error was not plain because the court's precedent does not make sufficiently clear to what extent the government may respond to a defendant’s request for a downward departure without implicitly breaching the plea agreement. The court took the opportunity to clarify its law on the subject. View "USA V. FARIAS-CONTRERAS" on Justia Law

The case involves Marcus Womack, who was arrested in 2017 following a search warrant executed at a residence in Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. The search revealed that Womack had been selling drugs from the location, and he was found in possession of a large sum of money, drugs, and a stolen firearm. On the same day, a criminal complaint was filed against Womack, charging him with nine offenses. Unable to post bail, Womack remained in custody. Subsequent investigations revealed that Womack's drug enterprise extended beyond Huntingdon County, leading to the involvement of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and a statewide investigating grand jury. In 2018, a second criminal complaint was filed against Womack, charging him with twenty-eight offenses based on evidence gathered during the grand jury investigation.The trial court denied Womack's motion to dismiss the second complaint under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(1), which requires a trial to commence within 365 days from the date the complaint is filed. Womack's motion to dismiss the first complaint on the same grounds was granted. Womack was found guilty of several offenses in a bench trial on the second complaint and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 39 to 90 years’ imprisonment. He appealed to the Superior Court, arguing that the computation of time for Rule 600 purposes should have been based on the filing date of the first complaint. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s order denying relief. The court applied the test from Commonwealth v. Meadius, which requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate due diligence between the period in which the complaints were filed, establish that the filing of the second complaint was necessitated by factors beyond its control, and show that its actions were not an attempt to circumvent or manipulate the speedy trial requirements. The court found that the Commonwealth met these requirements, and therefore, the Rule 600 clock began when the second complaint was filed. View "Commonwealth v. Womack" on Justia Law

The case involves Daniel Lamont Mathis, who was convicted of multiple offenses, including Hobbs Act robbery, racketeering, and violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity, all in connection with the carjacking, kidnapping, and execution-style murder of a Virginia police officer. Initially, Mathis was sentenced to four concurrent life sentences and a consecutively imposed term of 132 years’ imprisonment. However, after an appeal and the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, which amended the sentencing structure for second or subsequent convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court resentenced Mathis to four concurrent life sentences, plus 48 years’ imprisonment.The district court also set forth mandatory and discretionary conditions of supervised release. One of the discretionary conditions was that Mathis would be subject to warrantless search and seizure to ensure compliance with these conditions. However, the written judgment included additional language, stating that Mathis must warn any other occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition.Mathis appealed, arguing that the additional language in the written judgment constituted error under United States v. Rogers and United States v. Singletary. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Mathis, finding that the requirement to warn other occupants was inconsistent with the orally pronounced condition. The court held that this discrepancy constituted reversible error under Rogers and Singletary. As a result, the court vacated Mathis' sentence and remanded the case for a full resentencing. View "US v. Mathis" on Justia Law

James and Levi Garrett, a father and son farming duo in South Dakota, were found guilty by a jury of making false statements in connection with federal crop insurance. The Garretts had participated in a federal crop insurance program, administrated by Crop Risk Services (CRS) and backed by the Risk Management Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). They had obtained insurance for sunflower crops in 2018, and James had obtained insurance for a corn crop in 2019. The Garretts were accused of falsely certifying the number of acres of sunflowers and corn they planted in 2018 and 2019 respectively, and subsequently reporting harvest losses to CRS.The case went to trial in October 2022. The jury heard from several witnesses and examined dozens of exhibits. At the conclusion of the trial, James was convicted on two counts of making a false statement in connection with insurance for sunflower and corn crops, and Levi was convicted on one count of making a false statement in connection with insurance for a sunflower crop. The Garretts moved for judgment of acquittal, and in the alternative, a new trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. The district court denied their motion.The Garretts appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings and its denial of their post-trial motions. They argued that the district court erred in admitting certain evidence and excluding others, and that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the trial record supported the jury verdict and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying the Garretts' post-trial motions. View "United States v. Garrett" on Justia Law

Darion Benjamin Woods pleaded guilty to damaging the property of a foreign official in the United States. Woods and his co-defendant broke into the British Consul General’s family home in Houston, Texas, stealing various items and causing over $50,000 in damages. Woods was arrested and charged with one count of damaging property occupied by a foreign official. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The presentence investigation report calculated Woods’s Guidelines imprisonment range at 12 to 18 months. Woods objected to the report, seeking a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.The district court awarded Woods’s requested two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and calculated the Guidelines range at 8–14 months. However, the court varied upwards and sentenced Woods to 30 months in prison. The court concluded that this sentence was necessary to satisfy the 3553(a) factors and to protect the community given Woods’s prior criminal history. The court also ordered Woods to pay $56,636.15 in restitution and imposed a 3-year term of supervised release. Woods timely appealed, arguing that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable and that the condition in the written judgment that he must “refrain from the excessive use of alcohol” conflicts with the oral pronouncement that “while in the program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Woods to 30 months in prison, which was above the Guidelines range. The court also found that the written condition of supervised release that Woods must "refrain from the excessive use of alcohol" conflicted with the oral pronouncement that "while in the program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively." The court modified the sentence to reflect that while Woods is in the drug-treatment program, he’s not to consume alcohol excessively. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant, Tara Shawnee Pritchett, who was on probation for two misdemeanor offenses. In September 2021, a detective conducted a warrantless search of Pritchett's room, believing she was on searchable probation. The search resulted in the discovery of U.S. currency and what was believed to be fentanyl. Pritchett was subsequently charged with one felony count of possession for sale of a controlled substance. However, Pritchett moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing that her probation had been automatically terminated by Assembly Bill No. 1950 (AB 1950), which limited the maximum term of probation for most misdemeanor offenses to one year.The trial court granted Pritchett's motion to suppress the evidence. It concluded that Pritchett's probation had automatically terminated when AB 1950 became effective on January 1, 2021, several months before the search. The court also ruled that the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply, leading to the dismissal of the charge against Pritchett.The People appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District. They argued that the trial court erred in concluding that Pritchett's probation had terminated automatically due to AB 1950. They also contended that the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule should apply because the detective had made objectively reasonable efforts to determine Pritchett's probation status.The appellate court agreed with the People's latter contention and reversed the trial court's decision. The court found that the detective had acted in objectively reasonable good faith by relying on court records to verify Pritchett's probation status prior to conducting the search. The court concluded that applying the exclusionary rule in this case would not serve its purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct. Therefore, the court directed the trial court to set aside the order granting Pritchett's motion to suppress and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "People v. Pritchett" on Justia Law

Seth Lookhart, a dentist, was convicted of numerous crimes related to a fraudulent scheme that endangered his patients' health and safety. The scheme involved unnecessary sedation of patients to fraudulently bill Alaska’s Medicaid program, overcharging it by more than $1.6 million. Lookhart also stole $412,500 from a business partner. His reckless sedation practices nearly resulted in the loss of two patients' lives. He was arrested in April 2017 and convicted on 46 charges in January 2020, leading to a sentence of 20 years in prison with eight years suspended.Following Lookhart's convictions, the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing sought to revoke his dental license. Lookhart agreed to the facts of the accusation but argued that revocation was not an appropriate sanction. The administrative law judge (ALJ) disagreed, stating that Lookhart's misconduct was more severe than any prior case and that revocation was the clear and obvious sanction. The Board of Dental Examiners adopted the ALJ's decision.Lookhart appealed to the superior court, arguing that the Board's decision was inconsistent with its prior decisions. The court disagreed, stating that the Board had wide discretion to determine appropriate sanctions and that no prior case was comparable to Lookhart's. The court affirmed the Board's decision. Lookhart then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska.The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. It held that the Board of Dental Examiners did not abuse its discretion by revoking Lookhart's license. The court found that none of the Board's prior licensing cases involved misconduct of the scope and severity in this case, so there was no applicable precedent to limit the Board's exercise of its discretion. View "Lookhart v. State of Alaska, Board of Dental Examiners" on Justia Law