On Point

United States v. Mariano A. Meza-Rodriguez, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3271, 8/20/15

While aliens who are in the United States without authorization may invoke the protections of the Second Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibits unauthorized aliens from possessing firearms, is a reasonable regulation of the right to bear arms. Thus, Meza-Rodriguez’s prosecution under the statute doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Rodolpho Hernandez Flores, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1515, 8/19/15 (per curiam)

Hernandez Flores was stopped for driving with an obstructed license plate because his rear plate was affixed to his car by a standard frame that covered the plate’s periphery. The stop violated the Fourth Amendment because it was based on an unreasonable mistake of law regarding the statute governing the display of license plates.

Benjamin Barry Kramer v. United States, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3049, 8/17/15

Sticking with its decision in Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2013), the Seventh Circuit holds that Kramer’s most recent habeas petition challenging a conviction that was not affected by his three previous petitions is a second or successive petition and Kramer therefore needed authorization to file the petition from the Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Andre Jackson v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1145, 8/12/15

Jackson’s habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin became moot once he was convicted in Wisconsin of the charges for which he was extradited.

Humberto Sanchez-Rengifo v. J.F. Caraway, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-2876, 8/14/15

Sanchez-Rengifo sought relief from his conviction for sexual assault by filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt. The district court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petition should have been filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless that route is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”—a showing Sanchez-Rengifo failed to make. Though the district court applied the wrong statute, it doesn’t matter because Sanchez-Rengifo hasn’t met the standard for getting a certificate of appealability.

Demetrius M. Boyd v. Gary A. Boughton, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2809, 8/14/15

Boyd challenged his convictions in state court for both bail jumping and the substantive offense on which the bail jumping charges were premised, arguing that convictions for both crimes violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. That challenge having failed, he sought federal habeas relief. The Seventh Circuit holds that, in the absence of clearly established federal law holding that the substantive offense is a lesser-included offense of the bail jumping and that Boyd could not therefore be convicted of both offenses, the state courts reasonably concluded that Boyd’s convictions for both offenses doesn’t violate double jeopardy.

United States v. Bodie B. Witzlib, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1115, 8/7/15

The search of the basement of the home Witzlib was living in with his grandmother was valid because the area was shared and not Witzlib’s private space. Nor was the consent affected by the fact that after Witzlib answered the officers’ knock on the front door they asked him to come out of the house onto the driveway and, after he refused consent to search, they went back to ask for his grandmother’s consent to search.

Renardo Carter v. Timothy Douma, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-3312, 8/6/15

Carter’s trial counsel failed to object to a police officer’s testimony about the hearsay statements of a confidential informant who said Carter was involved in drug dealing. While the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that the failure to object didn’t prejudice Carter, the Seventh Circuit issues a useful warning about the improper use of the “course of investigation” rationale for admitting out-of-court statements.

Benjamin Price v. United States, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-2427, 8/4/15

Price seeks to bring a successive collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) to the enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. He claims that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the residual clause of ACCA violates due process, announces a new substantive rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has categorically made retroactive to final convictions. The Seventh Circuit agrees.

Louise Milan v. Billy Bolin, et al., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1207, 7/31/15

Police officers who conducted a SWAT raid on the wrong home weren’t entitled to qualified immunity because of their “insouciance” about another, more probable suspect of the crime being investigated and “the perfunctory nature of their investigation before the search….” (Slip op. at 4).