Recently in Constitutional Law Category

January 23, 2012

United States Supreme Court Says GPS Tracking Requires Warrant

vehicle-tracking-system.jpg

The United States Supreme Court ruled today in a unanimous decision that police must obtain a search warrant before using a GPS device to track a criminal suspect.Law enforcement have begun relying on such high tech devices to track the movements of those suspected of criminal activity.

The case that was before the United States Supreme Court involved a GPS device that had been installed by police to track a nightclub owner. The GPS device helped link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before an appeals court overturned the conviction. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision to overturn the conviction.

The Court held that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constituted a search, which required law enforcement to first obtain a search warrant. In the case before the Court, law enforcement actions by not first obtaining a search warrant violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizure.


January 19, 2012

Federal Lawsuit Filed in Response to Humphreys County Police Beating

Darren T. Ring, a 35-year-old resident of the City of Waverly, has had a federal civil rights lawsuit filed on his behalf in response to an alleged instance of police brutality, which I reported on in the July 2011 article "Police Beating Caught on Tape." Ring is represented by attorney David Raybin, a distinguished member of the Nashville law firm Hollins, Raybin and Weissman, who has filed suit against Humphreys County, the City of Waverly, Humphreys County Sheriff Chris Davis, Humphreys County deputies Timothy Hedge, James P. McCord, and James B. Lee, as well as Waverly police officers Joseph Parnell and Kinta Bell. Moreover, Rayin alleges that on January 23, 2011, the actions of Sheriff Davis, his deputies and the Waverly police "amounted to excessive force and were unlawful, shocking to the conscience and unconstitutional."

The complaint spans a stunning 44 pages, including a full transcript of the audio from a police dash camera, in addition to the camera's video. In the video, four officers are seen repetitively punching and kicking Ring, as he lay half naked and restrained on the ground, striking him with police batons, and even shocking him with a Taser. Although, Ring's ribs were fractured, one of his lungs punctured, and his body covered with bruises and other signs of attack, medical care was delayed until the following morning. It is further alleged that the assault continued after Ring was incarcerated with Davis pushing Ring's head into the cell wall, in addition to another deputy using a Taser on Ring in his cell while he was cuffed and shackled on the floor of his jail cell.

The suit further seeks punitive damages against the officers involved, as well as "those damages to which Ring may appear to be entitled to by proof submitted in the case for his physical and mental pain and suffering both past and future, loss of enjoyment of life, and the violation of his rights guaranteed to him" by the Constitution. As of September 2011, deputies Hedge, McCord and Lee have been fired, in addition to one of the Waverly Police officers involved resigning. County Mayor Jessie Wallace has since stated the firings were due to 20 percent of the county's officers being paid at home while the county was accumulating sizeable overtime. Although the sheriff has publicly claimed the actions taken were consistent with the departments training, it will be up to a jury to decide if the training is in fact consistent with the Constitution.

Sources
Federal lawsuit filed in videotaped deputies beating

Lawsuit filed on behalf of beaten, tased Humphreys Co. man

Humphreys man files suit, says sheriff, deputies beat him

TN lawsuit accuses Humphreys County officers of second beating

Darren T. Ring vs. Humphreys County Tennessee; City of Waverly, Tennessee; Sheriff Chris Davis; Deputy Timothy Hedge; Deputy James P. McCord; Deputy James B. Lee; Deputy Joseph B. Lee; Officer Joseph Parnell; Officer Kinta Bell

Posted By: Eston Vance Whiteside

September 25, 2011

Pardoned Felon Sues State Over Right To Bear Arms

5471537163_261507d7bc.jpgSecond Amendment advocates have been "up in arms" over a recent case that has resulted in a conflict between the constitutional supremacy of the pardon and the Tennessee lawmakers responsible for statutorily restricting the rights of felons. The case involves David Scott Blackwell, a Franklin man who received a felony drug possession in 1989 when he sold cocaine to an undercover police officer while living in Atlanta. As a result of his arrest, Blackwell would go on to serve five years in prison in addition to probation, which he would successfully complete. While incarcerated, he completed a bachelor's degree in nursing, as well as petitioning the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. On August 11, 2003, Blackwell was granted a full pardon, a portion of which read "All civil and political rights, including the right to receive, possess, or transport in commerce a firearm ... are hereby restored." However, shortly after moving to Tennessee he encountered a problem.

Blackwell wanted to take his son hunting one weekend and was denied while trying to purchase a .22 rifle for his son. Two years of unsuccessful communication with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the Attorney General's office led Blackwell to file a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee, Governor Phil Bredesen, and Attorney General Bob Cooper. Blackwell argues that his right to bear arms was restored upon his reception of the Georgia pardon. Also supporting Blackwell's position are various Second Amendment Advocates, who have historically refrained from voicing support for the rights of some felons to possess firearms. More notably, the Tennessee Firearms Association showed their support for Blackwell by filing a brief in the lawsuit, the first time the Association has done so in 16 years. Nashville attorney John Harris, who also serves as the volunteer executive director for the Tennessee Firearms Association, illustrated the significant issue being considered. "This is a question of, can the Tennessee General Assembly pass a statute that restricts the constitutional authority of another branch of the government?"

Although Blackwell's position was dismissed by the Davidson County Chancery Court, the case has been appealed and is under consideration by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. In preparation on the trial, Blackwell has retained the counsel of David Raybin, a distinguished member of the Nashville-based law firm Hollins, Raybin & Weissman, P.C. "The pardon restores constitutional rights, that's what a pardon does," stressed Raybin. "Therefore, it restores his right to a firearm. That's it, in its simplest terms." Moreover, Raybin maintains that the power to pardon and reinstate a felon's rights is preserved in a state's constitution. Furthermore, when a state statute conflicts with such a right, the constitution should prevail. Blackwell's full argument and brief can be found here.

Conversely, the state insists that the challenged statutory authority, which makes it unlawful for a felon to possess a firearm, does not exempt pardoned felons whose rights have been restored. Likewise, the Tennessee Attorney General's Office stated that a correlation between guns and drugs makes it reasonable for Tennessee legislators to expect the possibility of felony drug offenders, pardoned or not, to misuse firearms in the future. Another supporting factor for the state is a similar case tried in 2002, where the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a violent felon whose rights had been restored was forbidden to possess a firearm. Attorneys for the state asserted that, "the constitutional right to possess a firearm is not absolute." A full summary of the state's argument and their brief can be found here.

However, a recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, may prove to be more essential to resolving this case. In Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment declares an individual, constitutional right to firearm possession for all citizens. Raybin asserts that a felon's Second Amendment rights are included in the restoration of their civil rights. Similarly, Raybin believes the Blackwell case will mark the first use of the Heller decision in Tennessee. The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruling on Blackwell is expected sometime mid-October.

Sources:
Should pardoned felons have gun rights?

Convicted Felon Sues State Over Right To Bear Arms

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Verified Complaint for Declaratory Relief: Blackwell Motion in Chancery Court

Brief of the State

Brief on behalf of Amicus TN Firearms Association, Inc.

Brief of David Blackwell

Posted By Eston Vance Whiteside