Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In 2006, Deputy James Carroll and other officers from the Greater Rochester Area Narcotics Enforcement Team executed a "no-knock" warrant for Sherry Carroll's home. Deputy Carroll, who was in charge of securing the entryway, was the first to enter the house.

That's when he saw a dog growling, barking, and "quickly and aggressively approaching." Once the dog had advanced to within a foot of him, Deputy Carroll fired one shot from his shotgun at the animal's head and killed him. He says Sherry was not close enough to help restrain the dog from charging at the officers.

Sherry filed a civil rights claim against the department, arguing that shooting her dog while executing search warrant was an unconstitutional seizure.

Over the years, we’ve read our fair share of qualified immunity appeals involving police officers. The cops usually win.

The problem with these appeals is that — even when they are in the wrong — cops are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a right that was clearly-established at the time of the incident. That sometimes produces absurd results. (Like the Ninth Circuit ruling that tasing a pregnant woman who wouldn’t sign a speeding ticket counts as excessive force, but the cops were entitled to qualified immunity because the right to a shock-free pregnancy wasn’t clearly-established at the time.)

The silver lining, if you’d care to call it that, is that courts are forced to clearly establish rights for future cases. And that’s what happened this week in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 2005, then-New York Governor George Pataki directed the State's Office of Mental Health (OMH) and Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) to develop a plan to take executive action to implement a sexually-violent predator initiative that would result in the involuntary commitment of selected SVPs to state psychiatric facilities after the expiration of their criminal sentences.

Those who were committed under initiative weren't too pleased with the lack of due process, and sued Governor Pataki and officials of OMH and DOCS.

This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the program violated the plaintiffs' procedural due process rights, and that state officials shouldn't receive qualified immunity because they should have known better.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is popping up throughout the circuits lately. It's like she's the judicial groundhog, telling us we're in for six more weeks of legal winter.

For part-time New York residents seeking a gun license in the state, that legal winter will be spent waiting for the New York Court of Appeals to answer a certified question.

At this point, we should all be familiar with the general proposition that citizens are well within their rights to casually flip the bird to whomever they please, whether the recipient is a police officer or fans at a sporting event. Police officers should especially be familiar with the gesture after a series of stories of citizens successfully suing after being arrested for their self-expression.

Based on that commonly understood proposition, you might wonder how a middle finger case ended up in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Quite frankly, we’re still wondering the same thing. After the District Court dismissed John Swartz’s claims for an unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, and malicious prosecution via summary judgment, the Second Circuit reversed the lower court - and it wasn’t even close.

A recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision will make life a lot easier for pharmaceutical sales reps.

Monday, the appellate court ruled that a drug manufacturer's off-label use promotions are protected free speech, as long as such promotions are not false or misleading, Reuters reports.

Anthony Zeno moved from Long Island to Pine Plains, New York when he was 16. He enrolled at Stissing Mountain High School, a racially-homogenous school where minorities represented less than five percent of the student population. While at SMHS, Anthony — who the Second Circuit Court of Appeals described as “dark-skinned and biracial (half-white, half-Latino)” — endured three-and-a-half years of “racist, demeaning, threatening, and violent conduct” from his peers.

Anthony reported the bullying. Faculty and staff members reported issues. Anthony’s parents called school officials. Lawyers and the NAACP became involved.

Beyond disciplining students involved in incidents with warning or suspension, the Pine Plains Central School District didn’t implement remedial measures in response to the harassment.

If you -- or one of your clients -- want to carry a concealed handgun in public, you'll need a good reason and a little bit of luck.

This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York law requiring concealed-handgun license applicants to show a special need for self-protection in order to carry handguns, The Associated Press reports.

The plaintiffs in this case all want to carry handguns outside their homes for self-defense. Each applied for and was denied a full-carry concealed-handgun license by the County of Westchester for failing to establish "proper cause" -- a special need for self protection -- under New York law.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has considered a New York City ban on churches holding worship services in public schools 5 times over the last 17 years.

A three-judge panel heard the latest round of arguments on Monday, and it seems that the appellate court will once again side with the city, The Associated Press reports.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is now the second federal appellate court to strike down Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Section 3, reports The Associated Press. Applying “heightened scrutiny,” the Second Circuit concluded that DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest and held that DOMA Section 3 violates equal protection.

Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, a George H.W. Bush nominee, wrote the opinion for the divided panel. Senior Judge Chester Straub dissented from the majority holding that DOMA is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.