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

Javarese Holmes was identified as a suspect in an arson and drug dealing case. Police stopped him while driving and found a gun and drugs in his car. They obtained a warrant to search a residence they believed was his, finding another gun, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia. Holmes was charged and convicted of possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute, illegally possessing firearms as a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug crimes.In the district court, Holmes moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his car and the residence, arguing the searches were unlawful. The court denied the motions, ruling the car search was a permissible inventory search and the residence search warrant was valid. At trial, the court admitted text messages from Holmes’s phone under Rule 404(b) and allowed a drug enforcement agent to testify as an expert on firearm usage among street-level dealers. Holmes was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 240 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the inventory search of Holmes’s car was valid despite not being completed, as the initial search was reasonable and within department policy. The court also found the search warrant for the residence was supported by probable cause, linking Holmes to the residence and criminal activity. The text messages were deemed admissible under Rule 404(b) as they were relevant to Holmes’s intent and not unduly prejudicial. The expert testimony was allowed, as the agent was qualified and his testimony was helpful to the jury. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Holmes’s convictions for the firearm offenses. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Law enforcement used a specialized software tool, Torrential Downpour, to download files containing child pornography from a specific IP address associated with the defendant. Torrential Downpour is designed to force a single-source download from a user on the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network, allowing officers to link specific files to a particular IP address. After obtaining these files, police secured a warrant and seized the defendant’s computer and other devices, which contained additional child pornography. The defendant argued that he did not knowingly share files and that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files downloaded by law enforcement.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida held an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, considering expert testimony about BitTorrent’s functionality. The court found the government’s expert more credible and determined that the defendant had made the files available to the public. The court concluded that the use of Torrential Downpour did not access any information not already publicly shared and denied the motion to suppress. The court also denied a motion in limine to prevent the government from showing child pornography images to the jury, finding that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, especially since the defendant did not object to specific images.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the use of Torrential Downpour to download files from a peer-to-peer network did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files he made publicly available. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to show a representative sample of images to the jury without first reviewing specific images, given the lack of specific objections. View "USA v. Ewing" on Justia Law

Richard Hicks and his wife, Jocelyn Hicks, filed a lawsuit seeking monetary damages after Richard was injured by a vehicle driven by Gregory Middleton, an employee of Marine Terminals Corporation - East, d.b.a. Ports America. The incident occurred at the Port of Savannah, where both Hicks and Middleton worked as longshoremen. Middleton struck Hicks with his personal vehicle while allegedly on his way to retrieve work-related documents called "game plans."The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of Ports America. The court ruled that Ports America could not be held vicariously liable for Middleton's actions because Middleton was not acting within the scope of his employment when the incident occurred. The court determined that Middleton was engaged in a personal activity, specifically commuting, and had not yet begun his work duties for Ports America.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment. The appellate court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Middleton was acting in furtherance of Ports America's business and within the scope of his employment when the incident occurred. The court noted that a jury could reasonably infer that Middleton's actions, including driving to retrieve the game plans, were part of his job responsibilities and thus within the scope of his employment. The case was remanded for further proceedings to allow a jury to determine these factual issues. View "Hicks v. Middleton" on Justia Law

A psychiatric hospital in Florida, Suncoast Behavioral Health Center, and its management company, UHS of Delaware, Inc. (UHS-DE), were cited by the Secretary of Labor for violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause by failing to protect employees from patient-on-staff violence. The citation followed an OSHA investigation that revealed numerous instances of workplace violence at the hospital.The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission) affirmed the citation, concluding that Suncoast and UHS-DE operated as a single employer and that the Secretary of Labor had proven the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed abatement measures. The Commission did not address the economic feasibility of two specific abatement measures related to hiring additional security staff, as the feasibility and efficacy of the other six measures were undisputed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the Commission’s finding that Suncoast and UHS-DE operated as a single employer, noting that they shared a common worksite, integrated operations, and common management. However, the court found that the Secretary of Labor failed to prove the economic feasibility of the two security staffing-related abatement measures. Consequently, the court set aside the ALJ’s finding regarding these two measures but upheld the citation based on the six undisputed abatement measures.The court denied in part and granted in part the petition for review, affirming the citation but clarifying that Suncoast and UHS-DE are not obligated to implement the two security staffing measures. View "UHS of Delaware, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

A minor, J.F., was sexually assaulted by three fellow passengers in a stateroom on a Carnival cruise ship. J.F. alleged that Carnival could have foreseen the crime and failed to take preventative action. She sued Carnival for negligence, claiming the cruise line did not warn her of the danger or prevent the assault.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Carnival, concluding that the assault was not foreseeable. J.F. appealed the decision, arguing that Carnival had constructive notice of the risk due to previous incidents of sexual misconduct on its ships and the company's security policies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Carnival did not owe J.F. a relevant duty because the cruise line did not have actual or constructive notice of the specific risk that led to the assault. The court found that the general statistics on sexual assaults and the alcohol-smuggling incident involving one of the assailants were insufficient to establish foreseeability. Additionally, the court determined that the hypothetical presence of more security personnel would not have prevented the assault, as the attack occurred in a private stateroom.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Carnival neither owed J.F. a duty to prevent the assault nor proximately caused her injuries. View "J.F. v. Carnival Corporation" on Justia Law

On June 1, 2018, Officer Jonathan Guzman of the City of Miami Police Department identified a speeding driver in a black Jeep Compass. The driver crashed into another vehicle and fled on foot. During an inventory search of the Jeep, Guzman found a firearm, ammunition, and marijuana. Shortly after, a radio dispatch reported the vehicle as stolen. Officer Michael Bloom arrived at the scene of the reported theft, where Samuel Scott Jr. claimed his Jeep had been stolen. Guzman arrived and recognized Scott as the driver who fled the crash. Scott was arrested for multiple charges, including reckless driving and falsely reporting a crime. The charges were later dropped.Scott filed federal and state law claims in the Southern District of Florida against the officers and the City of Miami, alleging unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing qualified and sovereign immunity, and found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Scott based on Guzman’s eyewitness identification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Guzman’s eyewitness identification provided sufficient probable cause for Scott’s arrest. The court also found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and that the City of Miami was not liable under state law due to the presence of probable cause. Consequently, all of Scott’s claims were dismissed. View "Scott v. City of Miami" on Justia Law

The defendants in this case challenged the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which criminalizes unlawfully reentering the United States after a prior removal. They argued that the statute violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by discriminating against Mexican and other Latin American immigrants. Their theory was that the statute’s predecessor, the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929, was enacted with discriminatory intent, and that § 1326, first codified in 1952 and amended several times thereafter, perpetuates that taint.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss their indictments. The court assumed without deciding that the Arlington Heights framework applied but concluded that the defendants had failed to establish a discriminatory purpose behind § 1326’s enactment. The court also concluded that the statute easily satisfied rational-basis review. The defendants then entered conditional guilty pleas or proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, reserving their rights to appeal the constitutional issue. The District Court sentenced the defendants to varying terms of imprisonment and supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the District Court’s decision. The court found no clear error in the District Court’s conclusion that the defendants had not shown that § 1326 was enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose. The court noted that the defendants’ evidence, including historical context, statements by public officials, and statistical disparities, was insufficient to establish that the 1952 Congress acted with discriminatory intent. The court also emphasized that laws do not carry forward “taint” through reenactment unless the later legislature acted with the same constitutionally impermissible purpose. The judgments of the District Court were affirmed. View "USA v. Ferretiz-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Jekyll Island State Park Authority, a Georgia entity, operates the Summer Waves Water Park and owns the federally registered trademark for SUMMER WAVES. In 2021, Jekyll Island discovered that Polygroup Macau Limited, an intellectual property holding company registered in the British Virgin Islands, had registered nearly identical SUMMER WAVES marks. Polygroup Macau’s general counsel had also asked to buy Jekyll Island’s domain name, summerwaves.com. Jekyll Island sued Polygroup Macau for trademark infringement and to cancel Polygroup Macau’s marks. Polygroup Macau moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing it did not sell products in the United States using its trademarks.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted Polygroup Macau’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Polygroup Macau did not have sufficient contacts with the United States to support personal jurisdiction. The court noted that Polygroup Macau did not sell products in the United States using its trademarks and only permitted other entities to do so, making the connection between Polygroup Macau’s activities and Jekyll Island’s claims too attenuated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court’s conclusion. The Eleventh Circuit found that Polygroup Macau had purposefully availed itself of the benefits of United States law by registering and maintaining trademarks with the USPTO, allowing its sister companies to use those trademarks to sell products in the United States, and marketing specifically to U.S. consumers. The court held that the connection between Jekyll Island’s claims and Polygroup Macau’s activities in the United States was close enough to support specific jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for consideration on the merits. View "Jekyll Island-State Park Authority v. Polygroup Macau Limited" on Justia Law

DeShawn Gervin was on probation in Georgia with the sole condition that he not return to the South Georgia Judicial Circuit. He moved to North Carolina but was later imprisoned there for various crimes. A Georgia probation officer, Pamela Florence, learned of his North Carolina offenses and sought a warrant for his arrest in Georgia, falsely claiming he had violated probation by failing to report. Gervin was arrested in North Carolina and extradited to Georgia, where he spent 104 days in jail before a court found he had not violated his probation and ordered his release.Gervin sued Florence and another probation officer, Tandria Milton, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted summary judgment for the defendants on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims but denied it on the Fourth Amendment claim, characterizing it as a malicious-prosecution claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that Gervin presented enough evidence to support his Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim. The court found that Florence and Milton recklessly made false statements and omissions that led to Gervin's arrest and prolonged detention, violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court also concluded that the probation officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional violations were clearly established at the time of their actions. View "Gervin v. Florence" on Justia Law

In September 2019, Sweet Additions Ingredient Processors, LLC (Sweet Additions) and Meelunie America, Inc. (Meelunie) entered into a fixed-price sales contract for the supply of organic tapioca starch for the 2020 calendar year. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Meelunie faced supply chain disruptions and failed to deliver the full quantity of tapioca starch. Meelunie suggested that Sweet Additions cover higher shipping costs, which Sweet Additions declined. Sweet Additions then contracted with another supplier and declared Meelunie in breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held a bench trial and ruled in favor of Meelunie, awarding it $1,409,490.61 for unpaid invoices and interest. The district court found that the contract incorporated Meelunie’s terms and conditions, which included a limitation of liability clause. This clause, according to the district court, barred Sweet Additions from recovering damages for cover costs and lost profits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the sales contract did incorporate Meelunie’s terms and conditions. However, the court held that the limitation of liability clause did not preclude Sweet Additions from recovering direct damages, such as cover costs and lost profits, if they were not special consequential, incidental, or exemplary damages. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Sweet Additions Ingredient Processors, LLC v. Meelunie America, Inc." on Justia Law