Lundstrom v. Romero, No. 08-2254, concerned a civil rights action claiming a prolonged detention of plaintiffs. The court reversed summary judgment for defendant-officers, holding that plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate the officers violated their clearly established constitutional rights because, while the circumstances the officers confronted initially supported a brief investigatory detention, objectively reasonable officers would not have prolonged the detention and searched the home on the facts before them.
In US v. Hood, No. 09-4156, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of actual methamphetamine, holding that 1) defendant failed to show bad faith on the part of the police in failing to preserve evidence; 2) the district court did not clearly err in rejecting defendant's claim that his due process rights had been violated under Trombetta and Youngblood; and 3) defendant was not prejudiced by an error in the Enhancement Information.
In US v. Magnesium Corp. of Am., No. 08-4185, the court vacated summary judgment for defendants on the ground that an action by the U.S. claiming that defendants' handling of wastes failed to comply with regulations promulgated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), holding that the EPA never previously adopted a definitive interpretation, it remained free, even under the legal precedents on which defendants sought to rely, to change its mind and issue a new interpretation of its own regulations without assuming notice and comment obligations.