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

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Curtis Davis, had been arrested and charged with drug and firearm offenses after law enforcement officers executing a search warrant observed him attempting to place baggies of controlled substances into an air vent. More baggies of controlled substances, firearms, cash, cell phones, and additional controlled substances were found in the residence. The district court denied Davis's motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's decision. The court found that the search warrant was valid at least as to evidence of firearms offenses. The controlled substances found on Davis's person and in his bedroom were lawfully seized either incident to Davis's arrest or because they were in plain view of the officers conducting the search. Furthermore, Davis's cell phone was lawfully seized as an instrumentality of drug trafficking found in plain view. The court emphasized that for a cell phone to be seized in plain view, the "additional evidence or indicators" of criminality have significant work to do to establish probable cause. In this case, Davis's phone was found in the residence along with substantial quantities of controlled substances that were packaged for distribution, cash, firearms, and ammunition, all found on Davis's person or in his bedroom. This evidence provided law enforcement with sufficient probable cause to seize Davis's cell phone. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "US v. Curtis Davis" on Justia Law

Kenneth Hart was convicted of drug dealing, sex trafficking, and witness tampering. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act by failing to indict him for the witness tampering charge within thirty days of his arrest. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act on the witness tampering conviction, but rejected his evidentiary challenges.The court held that the government failed to indict Hart for witness tampering within the Speedy Trial Act’s thirty-day window. So it vacated only Hart’s witness-tampering conviction and remanded the case for resentencing on the four counts added by the superseding indictment. Hart also contended that the district court erred by allowing certain prejudicial evidence at trial, but the court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s rulings on these evidentiary challenges. View "US v. Hart" on Justia Law

The case revolves around two developers, SAS Associates 1, LLC and Military 1121, LLC, who filed a complaint against the City Council of Chesapeake, Virginia, alleging that their equal protection rights were violated when their rezoning applications were denied by the council. The developers owned several parcels of land in Chesapeake and sought to combine them to create a 90-acre development involving housing units, commercial space, and a conservation district. Their plans required rezoning, which was denied by the Council citing community opposition and the ability to develop under existing zoning classifications. The developers filed a complaint alleging that their application was denied even though similar applications from other developers were approved, and the council's reasons for denial were irrational and arbitrary.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the developers' claim. The Court of Appeals found that the developers failed to demonstrate that they were treated differently from others who were similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of discriminatory animus. Furthermore, the court highlighted that zoning decisions are primarily the responsibility of local governments and that the Developers did not provide any valid comparators to support their claim of discriminatory treatment. The court noted the lack of any evidence to infer discriminatory intent on the part of the City Council members and ruled that the Developers' disagreement with the Council's decision does not render the Council's judgment call pretextual. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint. View "SAS Associates v. City Council of Chesapeake" on Justia Law

The case involves Susan Harriman and Associated Industries Insurance Company. Harriman was an investment advisor who was sued for defamation by Palmaz Scientific after she shared damaging information about the company with her clients. Harriman sought coverage from Associated, with which her employer had an insurance policy, for her defense against the defamation allegations. Associated, however, denied coverage, arguing that the policy only covered wrongful acts committed in the rendering or failure to render professional services on behalf of the company. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Associated. The court held that Associated was never obligated to defend Harriman because the claims triggered both its policy and a separate policy Harriman had with Travelers Insurance Company, making Travelers the primary coverage provider. The court also held that Harriman failed to present evidence that would allow a factfinder to conclude that Associated lacked a reasonable basis for its coverage decision, thereby dismissing her bad faith claim. View "Harriman v. Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Trezith Rashad Smart, appealed his drug-trafficking convictions. He argued that his prosecution violated the Speedy Trial Act and that the district court erred in not granting his motion to suppress evidence from two traffic stops.Smart was initially stopped for speeding in Louisiana in 2017. During this stop, a drug-sniffing dog was deployed and alerted officers to the presence of cocaine in Smart's car. Smart was later linked to a drug dealing operation in Virginia and further evidence of drug trafficking was gathered during a second stop in 2018. He was subsequently arrested and charged with one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine.On appeal, the court rejected Smart's arguments. It held that there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act, noting that delays in the proceedings, including changes of counsel and the complexity of the case, were justified and fell within the exceptions provided in the Act. It also held that both traffic stops were constitutional. Specifically, the court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the first traffic stop and deploy a drug-sniffing dog based on Smart's extreme nervousness, inconsistent answers about his travel plans, and the presence of a gas can in his car, which the officer, based on experience, associated with drug trafficking. Consequently, the court affirmed Smart's conviction. View "United States v. Smart" on Justia Law

In this case, residents of the Waples Mobile Home Park in Fairfax, Virginia, challenged the park's policy that required all adult tenants to provide proof of their legal status in the United States in order to renew their leases. The plaintiffs, four Latino families, argued that this policy violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because it disproportionately ousted Latinos from the park. The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the park, reasoning that the policy was necessary to avoid criminal liability under a federal statute prohibiting the harboring of undocumented immigrants.However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment. The court of appeals found that the district court had misunderstood the federal anti-harboring statute. The court of appeals noted that the statute requires more than simply entering into a lease agreement with an undocumented immigrant to be in violation. Rather, a person must knowingly or recklessly conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented immigrants from detection. The court of appeals concluded that the park's policy of verifying tenants' legal status did not serve the park's stated interest of avoiding liability under the anti-harboring statute. Consequently, the park had not met its burden at the second step of the three-step burden-shifting framework established for disparate-impact claims under the FHA. As such, the court of appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment for the park and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court's decision that an ordinance enacted by Anne Arundel County, Maryland, which required gun retailers to distribute literature relating to gun safety, suicide prevention, mental health, and conflict resolution to customers, did not violate the First Amendment rights of the gun dealers. The plaintiffs, a group of gun dealers and a corporation dedicated to the preservation and advancement of gun owners' rights, argued that the ordinance compelled them to speak on these subjects against their will. The court found that the requirement to distribute the literature constituted commercial speech, which can be regulated under the First Amendment, as long as it is factual, uncontroversial, and not unduly burdensome. The court concluded that the literature was factual and uncontroversial because it did not suggest that firearms cause suicide, but merely identified access to firearms as a risk factor for suicide. Further, the court found that the requirement to distribute the literature was not unduly burdensome and was reasonably related to the County's interest in preventing suicide. View "Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County" on Justia Law

In this case, defendant Theodore Carrington appealed from the district court's order finding him "subject to the [civil-commitment] provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246," as well as alleging that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Carrington's claims on the merits. The district court's order was neither a final judgment nor an appealable collateral order.Carrington had been indicted for transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce. His erratic behavior during his detention and arraignment hearing led to a motion for a competency evaluation under § 4241(a) and (b), which concluded that Carrington was mentally incompetent to stand trial. He was subsequently committed to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment under § 4241(d)(1), with the intention to restore his competency for trial. Months later, the government filed a certificate for civil commitment under § 4246 in a different district court.Carrington argued that the delay in his evaluation process rendered the district court's order invalid and that this rendered him no longer in the Attorney General’s legitimate custody when the court made its finding. However, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear these claims, as the district court's order was not a final judgment nor an appealable collateral order. Furthermore, the court determined that the district court's finding that Carrington was "subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246" had no legal effect on Carrington's continued custody or eventual civil commitment, and therefore was not an appealable collateral order. As such, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Carrington" on Justia Law

In the case brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the defendant, Reshod Jamar Everett, appealed his multiple convictions and sentences for six drug distribution and firearms offenses. The charges arose from his involvement in extensive criminal activities related to drugs and firearms in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Everett unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence seized from his residence, claiming that the authorities violated the "protective sweep" exception to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant mandate. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 480 months in prison, plus supervised release.On appeal, Everett challenged the denial of his suppression motion, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting three of his convictions, and his 480-month prison sentence. The Court of Appeals rejected each of Everett's contentions and affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the protective sweep of Everett's residence was justified due to the circumstances, including the fact that Everett was a substantial drug dealer with a known connection to firearms. The Court also held that there was substantial evidence to support Everett's convictions, even under a plain error review. Finally, it concluded that Everett's 480-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable, given the seriousness of his offenses, his conduct between the time of the offenses and sentencing, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. View "United States v. Everett" on Justia Law

In a case brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, residents of the Waples Mobile Home Park in Fairfax, Virginia, challenged the Park's policy requiring all adult tenants to provide proof of their legal status in the United States in order to renew their leases. The plaintiffs, noncitizen Latino families, argued that this policy disproportionately ousted Latinos from the Park and therefore violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the Park, reasoning that the policy was necessary to avoid criminal liability under a federal statute prohibiting the harboring of undocumented immigrants.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court determined that the anti-harboring statute did not plausibly put the Park at risk for prosecution simply for leasing to families with undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, the court found that the Park's policy did not serve a valid interest in any realistic way to avoid liability under the anti-harboring statute. Therefore, the Park did not meet its burden at the second step of the three-step burden-shifting framework established for disparate-impact claims in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Given these findings, the Court of Appeals did not need to reach the third step to determine whether a less discriminatory alternative was available. As such, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Park and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Limited Partnership" on Justia Law