Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Unpublished Decisions

U.S. v. Aragones, 2012 WL 1764222 (5/18/12) (N.M.) (unpub'd) - The 10th reverses a suppression grant. According to the 10th, the following facts created reasonable suspicion the defendant violated ABQ's ordinance prohibiting "entering upon any private property and looking into any occupied dwelling without the consent of the occupant or owner of the dwelling: the defendant with a gang tattoo on his neck was walking through a high crime neighborhood in the South Valley; he made an abrupt move away from the officer as soon as he saw him; he approached a home's side door without conversing with the residents visible inside; and the defendant glanced about in a manner consistent with an attempt to find a route to flee - according to the cop the judge found incredible on several matters. The cop did not have to wait and see whether or not the residents welcomed the defendant. Officers can act before suspects do something illegal, as in Terry and Wardlow.

U.S. v. Coleman, 2012 WL 1764224 (5/18/12) (N.M.) (unpub'd) - The defendant failed to prove the decision-maker in his case, an officer other than Officer Ben Strain, was racially motivated when he decided to submit the African-American defendant to a Level II inspection. Evidence in a civil case that Officer Strain was a racist, and aggregated information about all officers at the Lordsburg port of entry, did not prove that the particular officer in this case was racially motivated in this particular case. And besides, the defendant was really nervous and that prompted the extra inspection.

U.S. v. Mullane, 2012 WL 1677417 (5/15/12) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - It was not plain error that the supervised release violation report and revocation petition did not refer specifically to a statutory provision that prohibited possession with intent to distribute meth, yet the d.ct. found the defendant guilty of that crime and sentenced accordingly. While other circuits are picky about the defendant receiving notice of the specific statute the defendant violated, the 10th has no cases requiring such specificity. So no error could be plain.

U.S. v. Rodriguez, 2012 WL 1764212 (5/18/12) (N.M.) (unpub'd) & U.S. v. Richards, No. 10-3314 (5/24/12) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - In Rodriguez, the 10th "commended counsel for his forthrightness in making these concessions." In Richards, the 10th describes counsel's Anders brief as "helpful and excellent."