Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Nathaniel Martin was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by a United States Forest Service law enforcement officer in the Monongahela National Forest after the vehicle was found illegally parked on a single-lane bridge. The officer, Joshua Radford, initially cited the parking violation as the reason for the stop. However, as soon as the stop began, Radford immediately shifted focus, asking about firearms in the vehicle and then further questioning both the driver and Martin regarding other possible contraband. Firearms were discovered, and Martin was eventually arrested after a check revealed prior felony convictions. Notably, the officer did not issue a citation for the parking offense, and the initial minutes of the stop were not captured on bodycam video.After more than two years, Martin was charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence and his statements, arguing that the stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the officer had abandoned the original purpose of the stop. The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the officer’s actions remained within the permissible scope of the stop and did not unlawfully extend it. Martin then entered a guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the officer’s immediate pivot from addressing the parking violation to investigating potential criminal activity was not reasonably related in scope to the original justification for the stop. The court distinguished this situation from prior precedent by noting the absence of circumstances suggesting officer safety concerns. The court reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and vacated Martin’s guilty plea. View "US v. Martin" on Justia Law

Charles Byers was shot and killed by Corporal Gordon Painter, a Chesterfield County police officer, after an emergency call reported that Byers had tried to break into two homes and vandalized one. Byers, who suffered from schizoaffective disorder, was seen wandering barefoot in a neighborhood holding a hatchet. When police arrived, Byers refused multiple commands to drop the hatchet, but kept the weapon lowered at his side and did not make threatening movements. After a taser was deployed without effect, Officer Painter fired three shots at Byers, who was about 25 feet away with his head turned away. Byers then turned to flee, and Officer Painter fired additional shots, striking Byers in the back and causing his death.Byers' parents, as co-administrators of his estate, sued Officer Painter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and for negligence under Virginia law, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court denied Officer Painter’s motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim on qualified immunity grounds, finding that Byers did not pose an immediate threat at the time he was shot, and granted the motion to dismiss the negligence claim. Officer Painter appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo, applying recent Supreme Court guidance that requires courts to consider the totality of the circumstances, not just the moments before deadly force is used. The Fourth Circuit held that, even considering the totality, Officer Painter’s use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that the violation was clearly established at the time. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Officer Painter’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. View "Byers v. Painter" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old male student at a Virginia Beach middle school received a sexually explicit photo from a female classmate and, several months later, showed the image to other students during the school day. After teachers reported the incident, the assistant principal removed the student from class, questioned him, and searched his phone’s photo gallery. The school resource police officer was notified and began a criminal investigation. The student ultimately showed the explicit photo to the officer, was read his Miranda rights, arrested, and charged in juvenile court with possession of child pornography. The juvenile court found sufficient evidence for guilt but deferred disposition; the charge was dismissed after the student completed court-imposed conditions.The student, through his mother and later counsel, sued the assistant principal, the school resource officer, the Virginia Beach School Board, and the City of Virginia Beach in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He alleged violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as conspiracy and Monell claims. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding the phone search reasonable under New Jersey v. T.L.O., the confession voluntary, no evidence of unlawful conspiracy, and no underlying constitutional violations to support Monell liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the assistant principal’s search of the student’s phone was justified at its inception and reasonable in scope under T.L.O., and that Riley v. California did not displace this standard in the school context. The court also held the student’s confession was voluntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, found no evidence of a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, and determined Monell liability could not attach absent an underlying constitutional violation. The court therefore affirmed summary judgment for all defendants. View "O.W. v. Carr" on Justia Law

A married couple, acting on behalf of their minor child, challenged West Virginia’s compulsory vaccination law after their daughter was disenrolled from a public virtual school because she was not fully vaccinated. The parents sought a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement, but were informed that only medical exemptions—based on specific medical contraindications or precautions certified by a physician—are permitted under state law. After being denied a religious exemption, the parents filed suit, claiming that the absence of a religious exemption violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their Christian faith. They requested a preliminary injunction to allow their daughter’s re-enrollment in the virtual academy during the litigation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the parents were likely to succeed on their free exercise claim. The district court applied the test from Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, concluding that the vaccination law was not generally applicable, and thus subject to strict scrutiny, which it found the law did not survive.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of preliminary relief. The Fourth Circuit held that West Virginia’s compulsory vaccination law is a neutral and generally applicable measure enacted under the state’s police power to protect public health, as recognized in longstanding Supreme Court precedent including Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Prince v. Massachusetts. The court found that the medical exemption process does not constitute a “mechanism for individualized exemptions” that would undermine general applicability under cases such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the law is subject to rational basis review, which it easily satisfies, and that the Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exemptions simply because medical exemptions exist. The court reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded the case. View "Perry v. Marteney" on Justia Law

The case concerns a petitioner who was convicted in West Virginia state court in 2004 of sexually abusing his son. After the trial, it was discovered that, during jury deliberations, one juror told others that he knew the petitioner’s family and feared for his own family’s safety if the petitioner was acquitted. Four jurors later confirmed that the comments had been made, though the juror in question denied them. The petitioner argued this introduced an impermissible external influence into the deliberations, violating his right to an impartial jury.The trial court in West Virginia denied the petitioner’s request for a new trial, finding insufficient evidence of juror impartiality and concluding that the statements related only to the jury’s deliberative process, not to any external influence. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed this decision, holding that the comments were intrinsic to the deliberations and thus not grounds to set aside the verdict. The petitioner then sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, which denied his petition, concluding the state court had not unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo but applied the deferential standard required by § 2254. The Fourth Circuit held that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court law in finding that the juror’s comments were intrinsic, not external, to the deliberation process. The court concluded that, under existing Supreme Court precedent, the statements did not rise to the level of external influence necessary to violate the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying habeas relief. View "Daugherty v. Dingus" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at Augusta Correctional Center in Virginia, Daniel Jackson, proceeding without an attorney, filed a complaint using a standard prisoner form. He named the prison’s medical department and two healthcare providers as defendants, describing his medical condition and alleging a series of events: the confiscation of his prescribed ankle sleeve, the denial of a lower bunk assignment despite his medical needs, and pain caused by required work footwear. Jackson also claimed he was denied proper physical therapy and pain medication, and asserted that one nurse suggested he acquire drugs illicitly. His complaint sought compensation for lost wages, treatment for his pain, and damages for suffering.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It construed the action as asserting Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against the individual healthcare providers, dismissing the prison medical department as an improper defendant under § 1983. After allowing Jackson to supplement his complaint with additional allegations—such as retaliation by one nurse—the district court recognized both deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation claims. The retaliation claim was dismissed for lack of plausible causation. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the deliberate indifference claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact regarding the adequacy of medical care provided.Jackson, now represented by counsel, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He argued that the district court should have construed his complaint to assert a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not err in construing Jackson’s complaint as presenting only an Eighth Amendment claim, emphasizing that courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings but are not required to identify every conceivable claim. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Jackson v. Dameron" on Justia Law

A man with two prior felony convictions crashed his car late at night in 2023. When law enforcement arrived, he admitted to drinking. Officers found a vodka bottle and a loaded handgun with a magazine on the ground near the vehicle, as well as a second magazine in the car’s front seat. Both magazines matched the firearm, which had been reported stolen. The man’s criminal record included a violent robbery and a prior conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, among other offenses. Based on these events, he was charged in the Middle District of North Carolina with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment. The district court rejected this argument. The defendant then pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal the constitutional issue. At sentencing, the Presentence Report determined that the offense involved a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine, setting his base offense level accordingly. The defendant did not object to the report and confirmed his agreement in open court. The district court adopted the report and sentenced him to 66 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed his constitutional and sentencing challenges. The court held that circuit precedent foreclosed both his facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1). The court also held there was no error in applying the “large capacity magazine” sentencing enhancement, and that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "US v. Holman" on Justia Law

Two students with disabilities, their parents, and an advocacy organization brought a lawsuit against the Virginia Department of Education and the Fairfax County School Board. The plaintiffs alleged systemic violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming that the defendants deprived eligible students of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and failed to provide proper procedural safeguards, including fair due process hearings and impartial hearing officers. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the IDEA, as well as constitutional claims for due process and equal protection.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the case. It found that one student, D.C., and his parents had not exhausted IDEA's administrative remedies before filing suit, as they had not pursued a due process hearing regarding their complaints. The other student, M.B., and his parents had a separate, duplicative federal lawsuit pending that addressed the same issues, and the court dismissed their claims to avoid duplicative litigation. The advocacy organization, Hear Our Voices, Inc., was found to lack standing to sue either on behalf of its members or in its own right, as it had not identified any member with a viable claim and its alleged injury was not sufficient to confer organizational standing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings. The appellate court held that the exhaustion requirement of the IDEA applied to all claims, regardless of whether they were statutory or constitutional in nature and regardless of whether the claims were alleged to be systemic. It also affirmed the dismissal of duplicative claims and found the advocacy organization lacked both representational and organizational standing. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "D.C. v. Fairfax County School Board" on Justia Law

The case arose after a technology company, using hash-matching technology, flagged files uploaded to a user’s cloud storage account as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and reported them to a national crimes center, as required by federal law. Some of the files were reviewed and confirmed by company employees, while others were not. The report was forwarded to law enforcement in Virginia, but after a delay, the investigation shifted to North Carolina, where the user had moved. There, local law enforcement conducted two consensual interviews with the user, obtained consent to search his devices, and later executed a search warrant at his home, discovering additional CSAM.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied the user’s motion to suppress the evidence. The court found that the user had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cloud storage files due to the service provider’s privacy policy, the contraband nature of CSAM, and the reliability of the hash-matching process. Alternatively, the district court found that even if a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, suppression was not warranted because the connection between the warrantless search and the later discovered evidence was too attenuated, citing the exclusionary rule’s attenuation doctrine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in files stored in cloud-based accounts, and that law enforcement’s warrantless opening and viewing of such files violates the Fourth Amendment unless a warrant or exception applies. However, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of suppression, holding that the evidence eventually used against the user was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal search due to significant temporal gaps and intervening voluntary acts, such as interviews and consent to search, making suppression unwarranted. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Lowers" on Justia Law

Several individuals who participate in West Virginia’s Medicaid program and have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria sought surgical treatments that are excluded from coverage under West Virginia’s Medicaid plan. The state plan expressly excludes coverage for “sex change” or “transsexual” surgeries, though it covers these procedures for other medical indications, such as cancer or congenital abnormalities. The plaintiffs, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, alleged that this exclusion discriminates against them in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and certain provisions of the Medicaid Act.In proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on all claims. The court found that the exclusion was unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause, the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination provision, and the Medicaid Act’s comparability and availability requirements. The district court issued a declaratory judgment and enjoined enforcement of the exclusion. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc affirmed the district court’s judgment. The state defendants then sought review by the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari, vacated the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of two recent Supreme Court cases: United States v. Skrmetti and Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.Upon reconsideration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court. The court held that, under Skrmetti, West Virginia’s exclusion does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Affordable Care Act, because the exclusion is based on medical diagnosis rather than sex or transgender status and is supported by rational, non-discriminatory reasons. Applying Medina, the court further held that the Medicaid Act’s comparability and availability requirements do not provide a private right of action, and thus plaintiffs could not sue under those provisions. The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for the defendants. View "Anderson v. Crouch" on Justia Law