Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Indianapolis and Marion County passed an ordinance prohibiting smoking in most buildings frequented by the general public, with exceptions for bars and taverns with liquor licenses that neither served nor employed people under the age of 18, tobacco bars, and bowling alleys. In 2012, the City-County Council expanded the ordinance by eliminating many exceptions. As amended, the ordinance included exceptions for private residences, retail tobacco stores, tobacco specialty bars, and private clubs that voted to permit smoking. Bar owners affected by the ordinance sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting due process, equal protection, takings and freedom of association claims under both the federal and Indiana constitutions. The district court upheld the ban. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis" on Justia Law

In 2008 Huart pled guilty to possessing child pornography, and was sentenced to 65 months. In 2011, he was transferred to a private halfway house that contracts with the Bureau of Prisons. Rules provided to Huart included one that “[d]uring intake, all belongings will be searched and inventoried. Any new items brought into the facility or removed from the facility will be reported to staff so the inventory can be adjusted.” Huart was not permitted to possess a cell phone. Rules governing inmates who were allowed to have cell phones specified that “ANY STAFF may request at ANY TIME to view the contents of [an inmate’s] cell phone with or without reason.” Huart signed “Conditions of Residential Community Programs,” which stated that he was subject to frequent searches of his living area by staff. An employee conducting a random search of Huart’s room found a cell phone on his bed. A house director discovered 214 images, including child pornography. Huart admitted to possessing the phone and the images. The FBI obtained a search warrant, but thel phone was passcode protected and had to be sent to FBI Headquarters. Agents did not unlock the phone until February 14, 2012; the warrant specified that the search was to be conducted before December 15, 2011. The district court denied motions to suppress, finding that Huart did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the search of his phone was conducted properly under the warrant. Huart pleaded guilty, but he reserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Huart" on Justia Law

Indiana enacted the Automated Dialing Machine Statute, which bans “robocalls” unless the receiver has consented to the calls in advance, Ind. Code 24–5–14–1, with limited exemptions. School districts may send messages to students and parents and employers may send messages to employees. There is no exception for political calls. Patriotic Veterans, an Illinois not‐for‐profit corporation whose purpose is to inform voters of positions taken by candidates and office holders on issues of interest to veterans, uses automatically dialed calls. For example, its website states that “in 2010, Patriotic Veterans, in partnership with singing idol Pat Boone sponsored nearly 1.9 million calls to veterans and seniors across the U.S. about cuts in Medicare as a result of the passage of Obamacare.” Patriotic Veterans claims that it cannot afford to make the calls without using an automatic dialer and a recorded message and that live operators cannot make calls fast enough when time is of the essence, such as on the eve of an election, and sought a declaration that the law violated the First Amendment and was preempted by the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, which also regulates use of autodialers. The district court found that the TCPA preempted Indiana’s statute as applied to the interstate use of autodialers and entered an injunction against enforcement with regard to political messages. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to preemption and remanded for consideration of other issues. View "Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. State of IN" on Justia Law

Hamilton claimed that Lorincz, dying of Parkinson’s disease, hired her to help him at home. She was a friend of Lorincz’s daughter, a former physician who was serving jail time. After Hamilton had worked 88 hours, Lorincz gave her a check for $10,000. Hamilton told Lorincz’s other adult children, by phone, that their father was dying and had given her a $10,000 check. Knowing that Hamilton had a criminal conviction, they told the police that Hamilton was taking advantage of their impaired father and went to their father’s house. Although Lorincz told the police that he wanted Hamilton to have the money and wanted the police to leave, they remained for about two hours and learned that Hamilton had been a psychologist, but her license had been revoked after her felony conviction for a $435,000 Medicaid fraud, and that Lorincz already had professional home health aides when Hamilton had “rushed” to his side. Hamilton had a history of bizarre lawsuits against government officials. Hamilton claims that the police would not allow her to leave while they were there and, when they left, required her to leave without the check, although she wanted to stay. The district court dismissed her 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit alleging police misconduct. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Hamilton v. Village of Oak Lawn" on Justia Law

Bailey was convicted in Illinois state court of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder. His trial counsel, Swano, had not filed a discovery motion and did not know that one of the eyewitnesses had testified before a grand jury. Swano received a transcript of the grand jury testimony after the witness left the stand, and entered into a stipulation that the witness had not told the grand jury that Bailey was at the murder scene. Illinois state courts rejected Bailey’s claim that Swano’s performance was constitutionally deficient. A federal district court denied habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Bailey did not show a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have differed but for Swano’s error. View "Bailey v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Four white male Chicago police officers, in plain clothes, in an unmarked car, were driving in a high-crime area that is largely nonwhite. A woman signaled them and, when they stopped, stated that men were gathered in a lot nearby and one of them, wearing a white jacket, was selling “rocks” (crack cocaine). The officers drove past the lot and saw a juvenile and three men; Morrow, age 20, wearing what appeared to be a white jacket. Officer May parked and watched the men, through binoculars, from across the street. May saw Morrow selling drugs and Bell, age 14, collecting money. Passersby were attracted by the yells of “rocks, rocks” from two older men. The drugs were in a vial on the ground. After about 20 minutes with three sales, May radioed the other officers and told them to arrest the group. May picked up the vial. At the police station the four were searched. Bell had $100 on him. All were charged. Morrow was charged with felony possession of an illegal drug. After being acquitted, Morrow sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging unlawful search and seizure and conspiracy. A jury exonerated all the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims of procedural error.View "Morrow v. May" on Justia Law

Balthazar lived in one of two apartments on the third floor. Police had a warrant to search the other apartment. Both had rear doors about opening on a common landing. The officers climbed the stairs to the landing and used a battering ram on the door of Balthazar’s apartment. According to Balthazar they entered the apartment, screaming profanities and pointing guns; handcuffed Balthazar and her cousin; ransacked the apartment, dumping food on the floor, opening drawers, flipping mattresses, and throwing clothing; and left after about 15 minutes when another officer appeared and said they were in the wrong apartment. The officers claim that, while they did hit the wrong door, they immediately realized the mistake and none of them entered Balthazar’s apartment. Balthazar’s attorney later claimed that even looking inside the apartment constituted an illegal search. Neither a claims adjuster who visited the apartment the day of the incident, nor the Independent Police Review Authority employee who took a report, noted complaints about anything other than damage to the door. A jury rejected Balthazar’s claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A search resulting from an innocent mistake is not unreasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Even accepting Balthazar’s alternative theory, simply looking inside does not always constitute a search. View "Balthazar v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Grandberry sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 from a disciplinary sanction, loss of “good time” credits, imposed against him by a state prison. He claimed that the Indiana prison’s disciplinary proceedings failed to provide him with minimal due process protections. The district court denied the petition on the merits. The Seventh Circuit held that a certificate of appealability was not required in a habeas case challenging state prison disciplinary proceedings because in such cases, “the detention complained of” is the additional time the prisoner must stay in prison as a result of the disciplinary proceedings. The detention does not “arise out of process issued by a State court.” View "Grandberry v. Knight" on Justia Law

In 2012 the Seventh Circuit invalidated provisions of the Illinois gun law, 720 ILCS 5/24‐1,‐1.6, which, with limited exceptions, prohibited a person from carrying a ready-to-use gun outside his property or the property of someone who has granted permission. The court ordered its mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the state to craft a new gun law and extended the stay for an additional 30 days. In July 2013, the Illinois legislature, overriding a veto, enacted, the Firearms Concealed Carry Act, 430 ILCS 66/1, authorizing issuance of licenses for carrying guns outside the home. The Act requires an applicant to be at least 21 years old; have 16 hours of approved firearms training; have a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card; not have been convicted of assault, drunk driving, or certain other offenses or be in pending proceedings; and not have been treated recently for alcoholism or drug addiction. The state moved to dismiss the underlying cases as moot. Plaintiffs, upset by the new law’s delay of 270 days between its enactment and issuance of the first permits, requested that the state be ordered, until the Act is fully implemented, to allow any resident to carry a gun outside the home with only a FOID card. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of relief, stating that if plaintiffs “don’t like the new law, and wish to invalidate it, they must bring a new suit.” There was no prior order except a deadline for the state to enact a new law. It met the deadline. View "Shepard v. Madigan" on Justia Law

Prison official Meyerhoff wrote a disciplinary report on inmate Hardaway, charging damage or misuse of property, forgery, and trading or trafficking of official electronics contract forms. Hardaway was sentenced to six months of disciplinary segregation, demotion in status, and revocation of commissary rights. Due to a childhood incident involving rape and abuse, which Hardaway associates with closed metal doors, Hardaway requested a cell with bars. Prison officials denied this request. Hardaway initiated a grievance, contending that he knew nothing about the sale of the electronics contracts, the charge was based solely on information provided by a confidential informant, the disciplinary report failed to state a specific time, place, or date, and that the disciplinary committee denied him the opportunity to view the forged contracts or argue any defense during the hearing. His second grievance was considered by the Illinois Administrative Review Board, which recommended remand for more specific information. Meyerhoff failed to revise the report, so the ARB upheld Hardaway’s grievance and concluded that the charge should be expunged. Hardaway had already served his segregation time, and claims that he experienced mental anguish as a result of the solid door; was physically attacked by his cell mate; and was only released from his cell once per week to shower and use the yard. The district court rejected his suit (42 U.S.C. 1983), finding that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Hardaway v. Meyerhoff" on Justia Law