Tenth Circuit Cases
U.S. v. Contreras, 10th Cir. No. 06-4144, (no WL cite available yet) (7/18/07)(Published) - An odd traffic stop ruling, not in its determination that reasonable suspicion existed, but in its assumption that the officer only needed reasonable suspicion to search the car. I could have sworn you needed probable cause to do that. In any event, reasonable suspicion was established where: (1) the defendant's travel plans were "suspicious at best and incredible at worst," i.e., traveling 1,200 miles to see family and turning around within a day to drive back 1,200 miles; (2) having food wrappers from California when she claimed to be traveling from Las Vegas, Nev., to Nebraska; (3) using a rental car (drug couriers often use third-party rental cars); and (4) the defendant was so nervous she could not hold onto the documents in her hand.
An obstruction of justice enhancement was appropriate when the defendant fled from state prosecution before the issuance of the federal indictment based on the same offense as the state prosecution . Where the defendant could be prosecuted by state or federal authorities, her flight delayed ("impeded") her prosecution in federal court, warranting the obstruction enhancement. Seven other circuits agree with this conclusion. The Seventh Circuit has held otherwise.
Becker v. Kroll, 2007 WL 2056775 (7/19/07)(Published) - The state charged the plaintiff-doctor with Medicaid fraud after a review panel had determined she had not committed any such fraud. A groundless charging decision does not violate the Fourth Amendment, absent an arrest or incarceration of the plaintiff. Such a prosecution also does not violate substantive due process. The plaintiff's Utah state tort remedies provided the requisite procedural due process to remedy any injuries. There was no due process relief for the suppression of exculpatory evidence because Brady is a trial right and there was no trial. There was no relief for the seizure of the plaintiff's patient records because an administrative subpoena need not be supported by probable cause. The subpoenas were sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose and specific in directive so as not to be unreasonably burdensome.
U.S. v. Warren, 2007 WL 2070281 (7/20/07)(unpublished) - The defendant agreed to accept a five-year sentence for revocation of a suspended state burglary sentence in return for dismissal of a state charge of felon-in-possession. It was not unreasonable for the federal court to impose a consecutive federal sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, even though the defendant really got no benefit, and plenty of ineffective assistance of counsel, from his state plea deal.
Powell v. Rios, 10th Cir. No. 06-1289, (no WL cite available yet) (7/19/07)(unpublished) - The 10th reverses a dismissal for failure to obey an order to file a complaint in a previously filed ยง 1983 case seeking a temporary restraining order. The plaintiff had filed the complaint, but the clerk's office mistakenly treated the complaint as beginning a new lawsuit.
Macarthur v. San Juan County, 2007 WL 2045462 (7/18/07)(Published) - A published case where the 10th spends almost of its discussion of the merits detailing how counsel violated a number of rules regarding brief-writing, e.g. the absence of the words "standard of review," reciting under the statement of the case factual assertions, without discussing the proceedings below, etc.
An obstruction of justice enhancement was appropriate when the defendant fled from state prosecution before the issuance of the federal indictment based on the same offense as the state prosecution . Where the defendant could be prosecuted by state or federal authorities, her flight delayed ("impeded") her prosecution in federal court, warranting the obstruction enhancement. Seven other circuits agree with this conclusion. The Seventh Circuit has held otherwise.
Becker v. Kroll, 2007 WL 2056775 (7/19/07)(Published) - The state charged the plaintiff-doctor with Medicaid fraud after a review panel had determined she had not committed any such fraud. A groundless charging decision does not violate the Fourth Amendment, absent an arrest or incarceration of the plaintiff. Such a prosecution also does not violate substantive due process. The plaintiff's Utah state tort remedies provided the requisite procedural due process to remedy any injuries. There was no due process relief for the suppression of exculpatory evidence because Brady is a trial right and there was no trial. There was no relief for the seizure of the plaintiff's patient records because an administrative subpoena need not be supported by probable cause. The subpoenas were sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose and specific in directive so as not to be unreasonably burdensome.
U.S. v. Warren, 2007 WL 2070281 (7/20/07)(unpublished) - The defendant agreed to accept a five-year sentence for revocation of a suspended state burglary sentence in return for dismissal of a state charge of felon-in-possession. It was not unreasonable for the federal court to impose a consecutive federal sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, even though the defendant really got no benefit, and plenty of ineffective assistance of counsel, from his state plea deal.
Powell v. Rios, 10th Cir. No. 06-1289, (no WL cite available yet) (7/19/07)(unpublished) - The 10th reverses a dismissal for failure to obey an order to file a complaint in a previously filed ยง 1983 case seeking a temporary restraining order. The plaintiff had filed the complaint, but the clerk's office mistakenly treated the complaint as beginning a new lawsuit.
Macarthur v. San Juan County, 2007 WL 2045462 (7/18/07)(Published) - A published case where the 10th spends almost of its discussion of the merits detailing how counsel violated a number of rules regarding brief-writing, e.g. the absence of the words "standard of review," reciting under the statement of the case factual assertions, without discussing the proceedings below, etc.
posted by Anonymous at 9:38 AM
<< Home