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

Officer Sullivan pulled over Braddy on I-65 in Saraland, Alabama, after seeing Braddy react to the presence of his marked patrol vehicle and observing that Braddy’s vehicle’s license tag was obscured by bicycles. During the traffic stop, officers discovered cocaine in Braddy’s vehicle following two canine sniffs. Braddy was charged with possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846.The trial court denied his motion to suppress, rejecting an argument that the reason for pulling Braddy over, a violation of an Alabama law requiring motor vehicle operators to keep their license plates plainly visible, did not provide probable cause because the statute did not apply to Braddy as a nonresident of Alabama. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Any mistake of law by Sullivan was objectively reasonable and the traffic stop of Braddy’s vehicle was based on probable cause. Sullivan did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop. There was probable cause to search Braddy’s vehicle based on the reliability of the drug detection dogs’ alerts. View "United States v. Braddy" on Justia Law

Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs (FLFNB), a nonprofit unincorporated association, advocates the message “that food is a human right, not a privilege.” FLFNB’s efforts include its weekly food sharing events in Fort Lauderdale’s downtown Stranahan Park, a location where the homeless tend to congregate. FLFNB does not serve food as a charity, but to communicate its message that "society can end hunger and poverty if we redirect our collective resources from the military and war.’ The Eleventh Circuit previously held FLFNB’s food-sharing to be expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and remanded the issue of whether the city’s regulations violated the First Amendment. Fort Lauderdale Park Rules require city permission for social service food-sharing events in all Fort Lauderdale parks,The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the city. The Eleventh Circuit reversed. The Rule commits the regulation of FLFNB’s protected expression to the standardless discretion of city permitting officials. It provides no guidance nor explanation of when, how, or why the city will agree. As applied to FLFNB’s protected expression, it violates the First Amendment. It is neither narrowly drawn to further a substantial government interest that is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, nor, as applied, does it amount to a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation on expression in a public forum. View "Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against the GDC and ASMP officials. The district court found that plaintiff did not properly exhaust the available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The court rejected plaintiff's contention that there were no available administrative remedies under the GDC policy. Rather, the court concluded that the GDC's grievance policy is distinct from the policy at issue in Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856–57 (2016), and is not a "dead end." Furthermore, inmates need not wait for the Internal Investigations Unit investigation to conclude before filing a civil suit. The court explained that, under the GDC procedure, an inmate exhausts his administrative remedies once he properly submits a grievance alleging excessive force because that act automatically ends the grievance process. Finally, regardless of whether an inmate's mental illness may render an administrative remedy unavailable in some other case, it did not do so here. Because plaintiff did not file a timely grievance and because GDC did not waive the procedural defects in the untimely grievances that he did file, the court concluded that he failed to satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. View "Varner v. Shepard" on Justia Law

During a criminal investigation into money laundering and wire fraud, the FBI obtained a search warrant to be executed at the Miami offices of entities that comprise the Optima Companies, which were located in a business suite. The warrant identified the items to be seized, including records of and concerning two Ukrainian nationals and several American citizens who allegedly own, control, or manage more than 30 entities that fall under the name “Optima” and have offices in the Miami offices. Among the materials seized were items from the office of an in-house attorney. Optima and affiliated individuals asserting attorney-client and work-product privilege, moved under Rule 41(g), Fed. R. Crim. P., to prohibit the government’s filter team (attorneys and staff who were not involved in the criminal investigation) from reviewing any potentially privileged documents unless either they agreed or the court, after conducting its own privilege review, ordered disclosure.The district court imposed a modified filter protocol but denied the request to prohibit anyone from the government from reviewing potentially privileged documents without consent or court order. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that government filter teams per se violate privilege holders’ rights. The modified filter-team protocol allows the Optima parties to conduct the initial privilege review and requires their permission or court order for any purportedly privileged documents to be released. The filter team cannot inadvertently provide the investigation team with any privileged materials. View "United States v. Korf" on Justia Law

In Georgia, in-person voters can vote on election day or during advance voting. Absentee voters, after applying for and receiving an absentee ballot, are responsible for returning their ballots directly to the county election office, depositing them into a ballot drop box, or mailing them to that office. The statute requires neither the state of Georgia nor county governments to cover the cost of postage for mailing ballots. Plaintiffs alleged that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause required Georgia to pay for postage for voters who choose to return their absentee ballots by mail; by not covering the cost of postage, Georgia is imposing an unconstitutional “poll tax” or fee on some absentee voters.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Requiring the payment of postage is not a “tax” or unconstitutional fee on voting. Georgia voters, without paying any money, have several options; even those voters who choose to mail in their absentee ballots buy postage from the U.S. Postal Service and the proceeds from postage sales are paid to USPS—not the state of Georgia— to account for the costs associated with delivering the mail. These voters are buying services from USPS. Georgia does not receive any money from those sales. View "Black Voters Matter Fund v. Secretary of State for the State of Georgia" on Justia Law

Troy Robinson's family filed suit under federal and state law after a traffic stop that resulted in Robinson's death. Robinson, a passenger in the stopped vehicle, fled the scene on foot, ran across a busy road and through a parking lot before attempting to scale an eight-foot wall. The pursuing officer fired his taser at Robinson while he was on top of the wall and the shock from the taser incapacitated Robinson, causing him to fall, break his neck, and die.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the officer cannot be held liable for conducting the initial traffic stop or pursuing Robinson when he fled on foot. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to these two issues. However, the court held that the officer's decision to tase Robinson at an elevated height violated Robinson's clearly established right to be free from excessive force. The court explained that the officer used deadly force to stop an unarmed man who was not suspected of committing a violent crime from fleeing on foot, and that Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), establishes that this level of force is excessive in that circumstance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to the officer and remanded so that plaintiffs' claims against the officer relating to the tasing may proceed to trial. View "Bradley v. Benton" on Justia Law

Mitchell was a Duval County Jail pretrial detainee. Detective Simpson told a jail official to “obtain,” “seize,” and “confiscate and review” all of Mitchell’s incoming and outgoing mail. A mail clerk, Perkins, delivered a letter from Mitchell’s attorney marked “Legal Mail” that had already been opened. When Perkins later asked Mitchell specific questions about his case, Mitchell concluded that she had read at least part of the letter. During the next year, Mitchell continued to experience issues with his mail. Perkins switched an outgoing letter to Mitchell’s family with another inmate’s letter. Sergeant Clark, the mailroom supervisor, tried to “intimidate” Mitchell, intercepting his grievances and warning him to stop filing complaints.Mitchell filed a pro se complaint alleging that Simpson, Perkins, and Clark, violated his constitutional rights. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, noting that: A simple rule has governed prison mail procedures in our Circuit for nearly 50 years: a prison official may not open an inmate’s properly marked legal mail outside of his presence. The defendants’ conduct violated Mitchell’s First Amendment right to free speech; it was clearly established that the officials’ conduct was unlawful. View "Mitchell v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2002, Hayes, age 20, violently attacked his 60-year-old neighbor without provocation or apparent motive, causing her to lapse into a coma. Hayes was later seen burning items in his backyard. Clothing recovered from the burn pile contained the victim’s blood. Charged with attempted first-degree murder with a deadly weapon and armed trespassing, Hayes was found incompetent to proceed and transferred to a state mental health facility. After months of treatment, the psychology department and two court-appointed psychiatrists concluded that Hayes was competent to proceed Counsel filed a notice of intent to rely on an insanity defense and renewed his objection to the competence finding but never obtained an expert opinion regarding Hayes’ sanity at the time of the attack. On the first day of trial, defense counsel withdrew the insanity defense, allegedly at Hayes' request. Defense counsel did not call witnesses but attempted to present a misidentification defense through cross-examination. At sentencing, new defense counsel presented extensive evidence of Hayes’ mental illnesses. The court called Hayes “mentally disturbed” but sentenced him to life imprisonment.Hayes argued that trial counsel was ineffective for abandoning the insanity defense. The Eleventh Circuit reversed a grant of federal habeas relief. To establish prejudice, Hayes must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The district court instead relied on a prejudice test that was rejected by the Supreme Court. Under the clear and convincing standard required by Florida law, Hayes cannot show a reasonable probability that his insanity defense would have been successful if presented to the jury View "Hayes v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

After Jeffrey West died shortly after he was released from the prison where he was being held as a pre-trial detainee, West's estate filed suit under federal and Alabama law against Escambia County and the Escambia County Sheriff, as well as multiple fictitious defendants, initially identified only as prison guards, medical professionals, doctors, and nurses. In this case, West had a staph infection, and after inconsistent medical attention that did not address his underlying symptoms, he died from complications related to the infection. The district court ultimately entered an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and dismissed all claims with prejudice. After the Estate moved to reopen and the district court agreed, the district court found that it had jurisdiction over the Estate's claims because it could reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) but granted summary judgment to defendants because the Estate's claims were time-barred.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order purporting to reopen the case because the parties' filing of the stipulation of dismissal left the district court without jurisdiction over the Estate's claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Furthermore, the district court could not reopen the case under Rule 60(a). View "Estate of Jeffrey West v. DeFrancisco" on Justia Law

Property owners filed suit after the Town of Redington Beach passed an ordinance that granted the public certain access to the dry sand beaches. After the lawsuit was filed, Plaintiff Fields was asked to resign from her position on the Board of Adjustment (which reviews requests for variances from the Town's zoning code), because she had filed this suit against the Town.The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's grant of summary judgment to the property owners on their claims that the ordinance violated Florida law and constituted an unlawful taking. The court concluded that the district court erred in declaring the ordinance void under Florida Statute 163.035; the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the property owners on the Town's customary use defense; and the district court erred in finding a facial and an as-applied taking. The court also vacated and remanded the district court's grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff Fields on the First Amendment retaliation claim. View "Buending v. Town of Redington Beach" on Justia Law