Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Christopher Redding was wanted for parole violations related to robbery charges and was classified as a "Violent Felony Offender of Special Concern." On February 28, 2017, police officers, including Deputy Jason Popovich, attempted to arrest Redding at an apartment complex. Redding did not comply with the officers' commands and instead started shooting, injuring one officer. He fled, dropping his gun during the chase. Eventually, Redding was shot multiple times and fell to the ground. As officers, including Popovich, approached him, Redding made a sudden movement, prompting Popovich to shoot him twice in the head, resulting in Redding's death.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Popovich on qualified immunity grounds. The court found that while there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Popovich's use of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, Franklin, representing Redding's estate, failed to show that Popovich violated clearly established law. The court concluded that a reasonable officer could believe Redding's sudden movement was an attempt to fight back, distinguishing the case from precedents cited by Franklin.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of fact that Popovich did not know Redding was unarmed. Given the severity of Redding's crimes, his recent shootout with police, and his sudden movement, a reasonable officer could have believed Redding posed a threat. Therefore, Popovich's use of deadly force did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and Franklin failed to show that Popovich's actions violated clearly established law. Consequently, Popovich was entitled to qualified immunity. View "Franklin v. Popovich" on Justia Law

A nominee for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia and the Libertarian Party of Georgia challenged a state law that allows only certain political parties to form "leadership committees" capable of accepting unlimited campaign contributions. The Libertarian Party, classified as a "political body" under Georgia law, was excluded from forming such committees, which they argued violated their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their alleged injury was not traceable to the defendants and could not be redressed by the requested relief. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants had enforced or threatened to enforce the law against them. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined it was moot because the 2022 election had already occurred, and the nominee had lost. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were specific to the 2022 election and did not present a live controversy. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the case fell under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, as there was no reasonable expectation that the same controversy would recur involving the same parties.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court to dismiss it as moot. View "Graham v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case involves Johnnie Davis, who was convicted of committing multiple carjackings in Montgomery, Alabama. Before his trial, Davis sought to suppress evidence obtained through a geofence warrant that tracked his girlfriend’s phone and his inculpatory statements made after his arrest. He also argued that the government failed to prove his intent to cause death or serious harm during the carjackings. The district court denied his motions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama initially reviewed the case. Davis moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the geofence warrant and his post-arrest statements, arguing that the warrant was invalid and that he should have been presented to a federal magistrate judge before being interviewed. The district court found that Davis lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the geofence warrant and that the federal presentment requirements did not apply as he was in state custody. The court also found sufficient evidence of Davis’s intent to cause death or serious harm and denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the geofence warrant because the search did not disclose any information about his own electronic device and only reflected his limited movements in public areas. The court also agreed with the district court that the federal presentment requirements did not apply since Davis was in state custody and there was no improper collusion between federal and state law enforcement. Finally, the court found that Davis’s use of a gun during the carjackings sufficiently established his intent to cause death or serious harm. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. View "USA v. Davis" on Justia Law

A civilian, Clarissa Gilmore, was strip-searched while visiting her incarcerated husband at Smith State Prison in Georgia. During the search, officers manipulated her breasts, ordered her to bend over, and felt between her buttocks with a gloved hand. The officers did not inform her of the reasons for the search, and no contraband was found. Gilmore sued the officers and the Georgia Department of Corrections, claiming the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the officers, finding that the search did not violate clearly established law and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court concluded that the officers acted within the scope of their discretionary authority and that there was no clearly established requirement for reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search of a prison visitor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed that the strip search violated Gilmore’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that correctional officers must have at least reasonable suspicion that a visitor is concealing contraband before conducting a strip search. However, the court also found that no Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent expressly prohibited suspicionless strip searches of prison visitors at the time of the search. As a result, the law was not clearly established, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves two groups of Montgomery residents who were jailed for failing to pay traffic fines. They sued the City of Montgomery, a private contractor (Judicial Correction Services, Inc.), and a lawyer (Branch D. Kloess), alleging that the process of converting fines into jail sentences violated the U.S. Constitution and Alabama law. The plaintiffs sought to certify their claims as class actions, arguing that the City and its contractors systematically failed to conduct proper inquiries into their ability to pay before jailing them.The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied class certification in both cases. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, particularly the predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). The court concluded that the claims would require individualized inquiries into each probationer's circumstances, such as whether they were given proper hearings and whether the City or its contractors acted wrongfully or in bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of class certification. It agreed that the plaintiffs' claims necessitated individualized proof, making it difficult to resolve the issues on a class-wide basis. The court emphasized that the evidence required to prove the claims, such as records of what happened at individual probation hearings, was not available on a common, class-wide basis. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' claims involved a variety of individual incidents rather than a single, systemic issue that could be addressed collectively.In summary, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification, as the plaintiffs' claims required individualized inquiries that did not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The decision to deny class certification was affirmed. View "Carter v. The City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

Police officers responded to a 911 call about a suspicious individual in a residential neighborhood. Officer Sanchez encountered Victor Grandia Gonzalez, who matched the description given by the complainant. Gonzalez was walking in the street, wearing dark clothing, and carrying a backpack. He appeared nervous and sweaty. Officer Exantus, after speaking with the complainant, learned that Gonzalez had been seen looking into mailboxes and concealing himself between cars. Upon arrival, Exantus patted down Gonzalez and found scissors. Gonzalez admitted to living out of his car and showed a photo of his ID listing a home county 30 minutes away. Based on these observations and the complainant’s report, Gonzalez was arrested for loitering and prowling. A search of his backpack revealed stolen mail.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Gonzalez’s motion to suppress the mail evidence and statements, finding that the officers had probable cause for the arrest. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to one count of possessing stolen mail but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to time served and two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require a misdemeanor to occur in an officer’s presence for a warrantless arrest. The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Gonzalez for loitering and prowling under the totality of the circumstances, including the complainant’s report and the officers’ observations. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The case involves Gretchen Buselli, who was convicted of a murder-for-hire plot targeting her estranged husband, Bradley Buselli, and for making false statements to a federal agent. The evidence presented at trial included recorded phone calls where Buselli discussed hiring someone to kill Bradley, and surveillance footage showing her leaving $5,000 in a lunch box as payment. Buselli had reported Bradley for abusing their daughter, but investigations found no evidence supporting her claims. She was arrested after an undercover FBI agent, posing as a hitman, confirmed the murder-for-hire plot.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida handled the initial trial. Buselli was indicted on two counts: use of interstate commerce with intent to commit murder-for-hire and making materially false statements. She contested the jury instructions related to the murder-for-hire charge, arguing that the jury should be instructed on Florida’s defenses to murder, such as justifiable and excusable homicide. The district court declined to include these instructions, finding no evidence to support them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the statutory language in 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) does not require incorporating state law defenses into federal murder-for-hire prosecutions. The court also found that any error in the jury instructions was harmless, as no reasonable jury would have found Buselli’s actions justified under Florida law. Additionally, the court rejected Buselli’s constitutional challenge to her false-statements conviction and found no error in the jury instructions related to this charge. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both of Buselli’s convictions. View "United States v. Buselli" on Justia Law

The case involves two Georgia non-profit organizations, New Georgia Project and New Georgia Project Action Fund (collectively referred to as "New Georgia"), and the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission. New Georgia was accused of violating the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Act by failing to register with the Commission and disclose their campaign expenditures and sources. The Commission initiated an investigation and found "reasonable grounds" to conclude that New Georgia had violated the Act.New Georgia then filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the Act violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing the Act against New Georgia. The state appealed, arguing that the district court should have abstained from exercising its jurisdiction under the doctrine established in Younger v. Harris.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court should have abstained under the Younger doctrine. The court found that the state's enforcement action against New Georgia was ongoing and implicated important state interests, and that New Georgia had an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding to raise constitutional challenges. The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss New Georgia's action. View "New Georgia Project, Inc. v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a warrantless search of a probationer's home, which was also occupied by a non-probationer. The probationer, Tremayne Linder, was on probation for burglary and attempted armed robbery. His probation conditions included a clause that allowed for warrantless searches of his residence. The non-probationer, Lakesia Harden, was Linder's girlfriend and was aware of his probation status. The police, suspecting marijuana use, conducted a warrantless search of Linder's home and found drugs in a shared closet. Harden was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and methamphetamine with intent to distribute.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Harden moved to suppress the drugs and her post-arrest statements as fruits of the allegedly unlawful search. However, the district court denied the suppression motions. At trial, the government admitted the drugs and Harden's statements into evidence, and the jury found her guilty as charged in the indictment. Harden appealed the denial of her suppression motions.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The court held that a warrantless search of a probationer's home, based on reasonable suspicion and a probation condition allowing warrantless searches, is not rendered unreasonable because the home was occupied by another person who knew about the probation. The court affirmed the district court's decision, ruling that the search was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "USA v. Harden" on Justia Law

The case involves the American Alliance for Equal Rights (the Alliance), a membership organization dedicated to ending racial classifications and preferences in America, and Fearless Fund Management, LLC (Fearless), a venture capital fund that invests in businesses led by women of color. Fearless organized the "Fearless Strivers Grant Contest," a funding competition open only to businesses owned by black women. The Alliance, representing several members who wished to participate in the contest but were not black women, sued Fearless, alleging that the contest violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits private parties from discriminating on the basis of race when making or enforcing contracts.The district court denied the Alliance's request for a preliminary injunction to prevent Fearless from closing the application process. The court concluded that the Alliance had standing to sue and that § 1981 applied to Fearless's contest. However, it also concluded that the First Amendment "may bar" the Alliance's § 1981 claim on the ground that the contest constitutes expressive conduct, and that the Alliance hadn't demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Alliance has standing and that preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate because Fearless's contest is substantially likely to violate § 1981, is substantially unlikely to enjoy First Amendment protection, and inflicts irreparable injury. The court affirmed the district court's determination that the Alliance has standing to sue but reversed its decision and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction. View "American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management, LLC, et al" on Justia Law