Eight Amendment Excessive Fine Prohibition applicable to the states through 14th Amendment says U.S. Supreme Court

Quote

 

Timbs v Indiana, 17-1091 (U.S. February 20, 2019).

Tyson Timbs plead guilty to controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. At the time of his  arrest, the police seized a vehicle Timbs had purchased for $42,000 with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died. The State sought civil forfeiture of the vehicle, which value was four times the maximum monetary fine for the offenses. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only federal action and is inapplicable to state impositions.

The Court held the prohibition in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. Under the Eighth Amendment, “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Taken together, these Clauses place “parallel limitations” on “the power of those entrusted with the criminal-law function of government.”  Indiana argued the Clause does not apply to its use of civil in rem forfeitures because the Clause’s specific application to such forfeitures is neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. However, the Court noted the trial court did not address the Clause’s application to civil in rem forfeitures and the Indiana Supreme Court only held the Clause was inapplicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.  The Court held the 14th Amendment makes applicable the Excessive Fines Clause, and the Court declined to separate out whether it was for criminal or civil forfeiture purposes.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

U.S. Supreme Court holds Clearly Establish Prong of qualified immunity defense must not be defined with a high degree of generality.

Quote

City of Escondido v Emmons, 17-1660 (U.S. January 7, 2019)

City of Escondido police received a domestic violence 911 call from Maggie Emmons. Officer Jake Houchin responded to the scene and reported Emmons had sustained injuries caused by her husband. The officers arrested her husband. Several weeks later, another domestic violence call was placed, but this time it was called in by mother of Emmon’s roommate, Douglas (who was not present at the apartment). Officer Houchin again responded. The body cameras revealed that when trying to gain entry, a man in the apartment also told Emmons to back away from the window and not let the officers in. Shortly afterwards a man exited the apartment and tried to move past the officers. Officer Craig stopped the man, took him quickly to the ground, and handcuffed him. The video shows that the man was not in any visible or audible pain as a result of the takedown or while on the ground. He was arrested for a misdemeanor offense of resisting and delaying a police officer. The man turned out to be Emmon’s father, who sued for wrongful arrest.  The officers filed for qualified immunity, which the trial court granted but the U.S. 9th Circuit reversed.

The U.S. Supreme Court broke apart the 9th Circuit’s analysis and questioned the lack of reasoning within the opinion. The Ninth Circuit’s entire relevant analysis was simply “The right to be free of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the events in question.”  The Supreme Court held “With respect to Sergeant Toth, the Ninth Circuit offered no explanation for its decision. The court’s unexplained reinstatement of the excessive force claim against Sergeant Toth was erroneous—and quite puzzling in light of the District Court’s conclusion that ‘only Defendant Craig was involved in the excessive force claim’ and that Emmons ‘fail[ed] to identify contrary evidence.’”  The 9th Circuit errored as the Supreme Court has repeatedly told courts the clearly established right must be defined with specificity. Courts may not define clearly established law at a high level of generality. “In this case, the Court of Appeals contravened those settled principles. The Court of Appeals should have asked whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from stopping and taking down a man in these circumstances.”  The opinion is reversed and remanded for further analysis.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Per Curiam opinion.

U.S. Supreme Court holds 1st Amendment retaliatory arrest claim barred because probable cause exists and plaintiff has no objective evidence of retaliatory motive

Quote

Nieves, et al., v Bartlett, 17–1174 (May 28, 2019)

In this First Amendment/retaliatory arrest/§1983 case the U.S. Supreme Court held the presence of probable cause eliminates the First Amendment claims as a matter of law. [Comment: warning this is a 48-page set of opinions, concurrences and dissents].

Bartlett was arrested by police officers Nieves and Weight for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest during a winter sports festival in Alaska. During the event Nieves and Weight were separately speaking with individuals at the festival about various law enforcement aspects when Bartlett approached each and interfered with the questioning of patrons. Due to the fact Bartlett appeared intoxicated, after the second time Bartlett allegedly interfered, he was arrested. It was also during this second instance that Bartlett allegedly aggressively attempted to physically intimidate one officer by stepping into his personal space and yelling at him. Bartlett sued under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that the officers violated his First Amendment rights by arresting him in retaliation for his speech.  The District Court granted summary judgment for the officers, holding that the existence of probable cause to arrest Bartlett precluded his claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and the officers appealed.

As a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for engaging in protected speech.  It is not enough to show that an official acted with a retaliatory motive. The motive must cause the injury under a “but-for” analysis.  The analysis is complex as it is particularly difficult to determine whether the adverse government action was caused by the officer’s malice or the plaintiff ’s potentially criminal conduct.  Police officers conduct approximately 29,000 arrests every day—a dangerous task that requires making quick decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.  After a highly detailed analysis of common-law and current precedent, the Court concluded the proper test was an objective standard test, which is resolved if the officers had probable cause to make an arrest.  The subjective intent of the officers is therefore taken out of the analysis.  However, the Court adopted an exception for “minor” offenses which allows a plaintiff to present objective evidence others similarly situation for these minor offenses are not arrested.  Because there was probable cause to arrest Bartlett and he presented no objective evidence others in his situation were not, his retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined except as to Part II–D. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Texas Supreme Court holds plaintiff in red-light challenge lawsuit was required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing for injunctive relief

Quote

Garcia v City of Willis, et al., 17-0713 (Tex. May 3, 2019)

In this constitutional challenge to red-light camera case, the Texas Supreme Court held the Plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing his constitutional-takings claim.

Luis Garcia sued the City of Willis on behalf of himself and “others similarly situated” who paid a civil penalty for violating a city ordinance for red-light infractions caught on camera. He sought the invalidation of the ordinance, a refund, or a takings claim. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was denied by the trial court, but granted by the court of appeals. On appeal to the Supreme Court the State filed an amicus brief arguing additional authority in support of the City.

While the City did not initially challenge Garcia’s standing to bring suit, the State’s amicus brief raised the issue and the Court felt it was required to address it first. After receiving notice from the City of his red-light violation, Garcia paid the requisite civil fine. He has no outstanding fines and does not assert he plans to violate red-light laws in the future. And for standing purposes we “assume that [plaintiffs] will conduct their activities within the law,” barring some stated intent otherwise. Because no pending charges exist, Garcia lacks standing for prospective injunctive relief and could not be a class member of others similarly situated who have not paid the fine.  However, he does have standing to seek a refund of his past payment. In this context, immunity is waived only if Garcia paid the fine under duress.  Here, Garcia chose to voluntarily pay a fine and forgo administrative remedies that would have entitled him to an automatic stay of the enforcement of his fine under TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 707.014(a).  Because Garcia could have invoked this automatic reprieve from payment and challenged the notice of violation administratively but chose not to, he cannot now claim he paid his fine under duress.  Therefore, the City maintains its immunity.   Garcia additionally argues the fine imposed on him amounts to an unconstitutional taking because the underlying is unconstitutional and because the City failed to conduct the statutorily required engineering study.  He asserts he could not challenge the constitutionality of the fine in the administrative hearing. However, the fact remains that the hearing officer might have ruled in his favor for other reasons that would moot his constitutional arguments. As a result, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

If you would like to read this opinion click here.  Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court.  The docket page with attorney information can be found here.

Texas Supreme Court holds pension boards amendments to deferred retirement option account was not unconstitutional

Eddington v Dallas Police and Fire Penson Systems, et al.,   17-0058, (Tex. March 8, 2019)

This is a statutory construction case where the Texas Supreme Court held the City of Dallas’ amendment to its pension plan did not violate the Texas Constitution.

Article XVI, Section 66 of the Texas Constitution prohibits the reduction of benefits in certain local public retirement plans.  The Dallas Police and Fire Pension System (“the System”) amended its pension plan to reduce the interest rate paid on Deferred Retirement Option Plan (“DROP”) accounts. After a member is eligible for retirement, the member can choose to continue working and when leaving active service, draw a higher monthly annuity.  However, a member’s annuity is fixed at retirement age and does not increase with continued service.  While a member continues to work, the System created the DROP option allowing monthly credits to his DROP account, accessible upon leaving active service. In other words, members working past retirement eligibility can choose between a higher annuity on leaving active service, or a lower annuity plus a forced savings account.  The petitioners sued asserting the amendments to the changed interest rate was unconstitutional. The trial court and appellate court denied petitioner’s relief.

After analyzing the text of Section 66 and the uncontested facts asserted, the Court held lowering the interest rate that as-yet unearned DROP payments will bear does not affect a benefit accrued or granted to employees. Interest already credited to DROP accounts is not impacted. The reduction in DROP account interest is prospective only. Section 66(d) protects “accrued” benefits only. Such benefits are those that have been earned by service, not those that may be earned by future service.

Finally, the Court held the trial court did not error in excluding the legislative history evidence submitted and the fiscal notes of the Legislative Budget Board.  The Court reasoned that while the judiciary can consider such information, those are construction aides. Courts should rely heavily on the literal text. The Court determined the text of Section 66 is plain as it affects the parties, so no error was made by the trial court.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Chief Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.  Justice Guzman and Justice Brown not sitting. The docket page with attorney information can be found here.

Texas Open Meetings Act section held unconstitutional by Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Quote

State of Texas v Craig Doyal, PD-0254-18 (Tex. Crim. App. – February 27, 2019)

In this criminal case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held unconstitutional the provision of the Texas Open Meetings Act (“TOMA”) regarding circumventing the Act by meeting in numbers of less than a quorum.

The Montgomery County Judge and member of the commissioner’s court was indicted for allegedly attempting to circumvent TOMA regarding a local county road issue.  Doyal filed a motion to quash the criminal charge challenging the constitutionality of the circumvention provision.  The trial court dismissed the complaint but the Court of Appeals reversed holding the TOMA provision was constitutional. Doyal appealed.

The Court first disagreed with the State’s position and held the statute regulates speech, not simply conduct. The definition of “meeting” requires a deliberation or exchange of information, which is speech. For purposes of TOMA, s the statutory act of engaging in a “meeting” is communicative.  Next the Court held when a vagueness challenge involves First Amendment, a criminal law maybe held facially invalid even though it may not be unconstitutional as applied to the defendant’s conduct. To pass constitutional muster, a law that imposes criminal liability must be sufficiently clear (1) to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and (2) to establish determinate guidelines for law enforcement.  When the law implicates First Amendment freedoms, it must also be sufficiently definite to avoid chilling protected expression. What renders a statute vague is the “indeterminacy of precisely what” the prohibited conduct is. Under § 551.143 a person commits and offense if the person “knowingly conspires to circumvent TOMA by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations ….”  The Court found it difficult to support the provision since TOMA applies only when a quorum is present but the crime is committed when a quorum is not present. Further, the phrase “knowingly circumvent” does not focus on real-world conduct and is a catch-all provision in the abstract. As a result, the provision was held unconstitutional on its face.

The concurring opinion disagreed the statute was vague and simply reasoned the statute impermissively violated the First Amendment.  The dissent disagreed with both the vagueness and First Amendment analysis.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Concurring opinion by Justice Slaughter found here. Dissenting opinion by Justice Yeary found here.

14th Court of Appeals holds $25 finance charge on criminal fines is facially unconstitutional

Quote

Devlon Johnson v State of Texas, 14-18-00273-CR (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.], February 5, 2019, no pet. h.)

In this criminal case, the 14th Court of Appeals held facially unconstitutional a provision of the Texas Local Government Code regarding the amount of court fees which a criminal defendant can be required to pay upon conviction. This applies to all levels of criminal fines, from municipal court up to felony charges in district court. All other fees were upheld as constitutional.

Johnson asserts he plead guilty to a criminal charge for possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. At sentencing, he was ordered to pay an itemized listing of court costs. The costs assessed were a Sheriff’s fee, Capias Warrant fee, District Clerk fee, Jury Service Fund fee, Basic Criminal legal Services fee, Administrative Transaction fee, and a $25 Time Payment fee for paying the judgment beyond thirty days. According to the opinion, Johnson challenged the facial constitutionality of the court cost charges and therefore appealed the sentence.

The State asserted the challenge to the constitutionality of the court costs was not presented to the trial court. However, the opinion did not address the consideration by the trial court as it was a facial challenge.  The panel went through the constitutional standards applicable to criminal court fees.  For a facial-challenge analysis regarding court costs, courts will consider only applications the statute actually authorizes or prohibits, not how or where the collected fees might actually be spent. Two types of court-cost statutes pass constitutional muster: (1) statutes under which a court recoups expenditures necessary or incidental to criminal prosecutions; and (2) statutes providing for an allocation of the costs to be expended for any legitimate criminal justice purpose. The court analyzed each fee and determined all but the $25 Time Payment fee was constitutional. The Time Payment fee is a fee of $25 if the person pays “any part of a fine, court costs, or restitution on or after the 31st day after the date on which a judgment is entered assessing the fine, court costs, or restitution.” Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 133.103(a). The court viewed this as is simply a late fee assessed when a person convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor and takes longer than thirty days to pay a fine.  The court held 90% of the fee is facially unconstitutional because it requires the funds be deposited into a general fund without limitation or restriction.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justice Wise, Justice Jewell, and Justice Poissant. Opinion by Justice Jewell. The attorney listed for Johnson is Justin Bradford Smith.  The attorneys listed for the State are Stacey M. Soule, Bob D. Odom, and Henry L. Garza.

December 2018 Condensed Summaries

The problem with December is courts try to get cases off their desk prior to the holiday break. Clients like to get stuff resolved before the holiday break. Which means a lot of stuff happens in December preventing me from keeping up with all of the cases coming out related to governmental entities.  While I do not like to do it very often, I am having to provide a condensed version of the case summaries for December 2018.

  1. 1st District COA holds county courts at law in Harris County are the exception and have exclusive jurisdiction for inverse condemnation claims. San Jacinto River Authority v. Charles J. Argento 01-18-00406-CV (Tex. App. — Houston [1st] Dec. 4, 2018). Opinion click here.  This is 36 page opinion where the First District Court of Appeals in Houston consolidated several cases where homeowners brought takings claims due to flooding. The court held the Legislature gave the Harris County civil courts at law exclusive jurisdiction over inverse-condemnation claims under Texas Government Code § 25.1032(c). Therefore, the district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims. The district courts do, however, have subject-matter jurisdiction over the homeowners’ statutory takings claims under Government Code Chapter 2007, the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act.

 

  1. University’s plea to the jurisdiction granted as to ex-employee subject to RIF. Francisco Sanchez, Jr. v. Texas A&M University- San Antonio 04-17-00197-CV (Tex. App. – San Antonio, Dec. 12, 2018). For opinion click A University employee (Sanchez) was subject to a reduction-in-force and brought discrimination charges after being demoted. Sanchez had two positions, with one being a project lead. He filed his EEOC charge for one position after the 180-day deadline from the date of the adverse action and the other EEOC charge was filed within 180 days for the second position. The court held the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to Sanchez. Further, Sanchez could not establish discrimination through direct evidence. The RIF was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason which was not disputed with competent evidence.

 

  1. Fact that attorney “sent” TTCA claim notice letter is irrelevant; TTCA requires notice to be “received’ within time period. City of San Antonio v. Gabriela Rocha 04-18-00367-CV (Tex App. – San, Antonio, Dec.12, 2018). For opinion click This is a TTCA police vehicle accident case. While the TTCA gives a plaintiff 180 days to provide written notice of claim to waive immunity, the City Charter only provided a 90 day window. And while the affidavit of Rocha’s lawyer notes he “sent” the notice timely, the plain language of the TTCA and Charter require the notice to have been “received” within the time period. So, formal written notice was not received timely. The court then analyzed whether the City had actual notice. After examining the record, the court held nothing indicates the City had actual notice of an injury or property damage. As a result, no waiver of immunity exists.

 

  1. Officer’s F-5 dishonorable discharged sustained since omission of material facts in report qualifies under a discharge for untruthfulness. Patrick Stacks v. Burnet County Sheriff’s Office 03-17-00752-CV (Tex. App. — Austin, 12, 2018). For opinion click here. This is an appeal from an F-5 determination that a sheriff’s deputy was dishonorably discharged. Stacks was terminated after a confidential information who personally observed a stop made by Stacks brought forth testimony of significant omissions by Stacks in his report. Stacks asserted the omissions did not amount to “untruthfulness.” The administrative law judge as the SOAH hearing disagreed and held Stacks was discharged for untruthfulness and therefore the dishonorable discharge should apply. The district court agreed. The court of appeals held the law recognizes the misleading effect of omissions. A failure to disclose a fact “may be as misleading as a positive misrepresentation…” As a result, for F-5 determinations, a discharge for untruthfulness includes a discharge for omitting material information or facts that rendered a statement misleading or deceptive.  The ALJ determination was sustained.

 

  1. Property Owners’ takings claims failed as Authority acted within its federal license under Federal Power Act. Jim Waller, et al v. Sabine River Authority of Texas 09-18-00040-CV (Tex. App. – Beaumont, Dec. 6, 2018). For opinion click This is a flooding/inverse condemnation case. During a federal license renewal process, residents who live downstream of the Toledo Bend Dam presented their suggestions about changing the regulations governing the hydroelectric plant to prevent flooding. The suggestions were not incorporated. Then a historic rainfall event occurred causing flooding and the residents sued for takings claims. The Authority acted within the terms of its license and the flooding was caused by the historic rain levels. Further, Plaintiff’s arguments would impose duties expressly rejected by the federal agency during relicensing. As such, the claims are preempted by the Federal Power Act.

 

  1. Supreme Court remands case to COA to reevaluate based on its holding in Wasson II. Owens v. City of Tyler, 17-0888, 2018 WL 6711522, at *1 (Tex. Dec. 21, 2018). For the opinion click here.  The City of Tyler built Lake Tyler in 1946 and leased lakefront lots to residents in a manner very similar to Wasson. Tenants decided to build a new pier and boathouse extending from their lot onto the water. This caused neighboring tenants to object. The neighboring tenants sued the City after it issued a building permit.  After the intermediate court of appeals issued an opinion, the Texas Supreme Court issued the most recent Wasson decision. As a result, the Supreme Court send remanded the case back to the court of appeals in order analyze the case under the four-part test.

 

 

  1. Declaratory Judgment action was first filed, so later filed negligent action must be abated. In re: Texas Christian University, 05-18-00967-CV, (Tex. App. – Dallas, December 21, 2018). For opinion click here. Two negligent/medical malpractice claims were filed, one in Tarrant County and one in Dallas County. The cases are inherently interrelated. The central facts to both lawsuits involve the circumstances surrounding a student athlete’s injury during the September 2015 football game, the subsequent treatment from JPSPG physicians, and the alleged harassment and pressure he felt from TCU’s coaching staff to return to play. To resolve uncertainties regarding the hospital’s liability regarding the athletic event, TCU filed its declaratory judgment action seeking declarations regarding the construction and validity of the Health Services Contract.  As a result, the “first filed” rule dictates the later filed lawsuit by the student must be abated.

 

  1. Texas Supreme Court details statutory construction to determine emergency medical response exception to liability. Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Denton, et al., v D.A., et al. 17-0256 (Tex. December 21, 2018). This is a medical malpractice case, but deals with the emergency medical responder provision of the Texas Medical Liability Act, similar in wording to the emergency responder provision of the Texas Tort Claims Act.  Utilizing statutory construction principals, the court noted punctuation and grammar rules can be crucial to proper construction. The Court focused on the prepositional phrase “in a” hospital, and determined the phrase placed before each contested text indicates the Legislature intended for each phrase to be treated separately. The Plaintiff’s construction argument would require the Court to ignore the second use of the prepositional phrase “in a” and renders that language meaningless. The Court declined to use external aides for construction (including the legislative history). While the Texas Code Construction Act allows a court to rely on such aides, even for unambiguous statutes, the Court held it is the Court, as the high judicial body, who decides when such aides will be used, not the Legislature. Further, statements explaining an individual legislator’s intent cannot reliably describe the legislature body’s intent. By focusing on the language enacted, the Court encourages the legislature to enact unambiguous statutes, it discourages courts from usurping the legislature’s role of deciding what the law should be, and it enables citizens to rely on the laws as published. As a result, based on the language in the statute, the Plaintiffs must establish willful and wanton negligence when their claims arise out of the provision of emergency medical care in a hospital obstetrical unit, regardless of whether that care is provided immediately following an evaluation or treatment in the hospital’s emergency department or at some point later, after the urgency has passed.

 

  1. Dog owner could seek injunction stay of municipal dangerous dog court order in county court at law. The State of Texas by and through the City of Dallas v. Dallas Pets Alive, Nos 05-18-00084-CV and 05-18-00282-CV. For the opinions click here and here. Rusty, a pit bull/terrier mix dog, bit and injured a two-year-old child at an adoption event. The City determined Rusty was a dangerous dog under Texas Health & Safety Code § 822.002 in municipal court. The adoption center filed an appeal but also filed for injunctive relief in county court at law to stop the municipal court’s order, which the county court at law granted. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction as to injunction order which was denied. The majority opinion held where the state initiates litigation, it has no immunity from suit. Further, the appellate court (i.e. county court at law) has jurisdiction to protect its own jurisdiction (i.e. involving the subject of a pending appeal). The court held the county court at law had jurisdiction to hear the dangerous dog appeal from municipal court and the injunction was propepr. Justice Lang dissented and would have held the county court at law would not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

1st District Court of Appeals holds section of Texas Water Code regarding sewer CCNs unconstitutional

Quote

City of Tyler v. Liberty Utilities (Tall Timbers Sewer) Corp., 01-17-00745-CV (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.], December 20, 2018)

This is a declaratory judgment case where the First District Court of Appeals in Houston held a provision of the Texas Water Code unconstitutional.

Liberty Utilities (Tall Timbers Sewer) Corporation provides retail sewer utility service in Smith County under a certificate of convenience and public necessity. The City of Tyler desired to provide sewer service in Liberty’s service areas. State law prohibited the dual service in the area, so the City went to the Legislature, which passed §13.2475 of the Texas Water Code.  This created an exception from the generally applicable law allowing the City to provide sewer service within its boundaries, even in Liberty’s service areas. Liberty then sued the City, successfully obtaining a declaratory judgment that §13.2475 is unconstitutional. The City appealed.

In this 21-page opinion, the court analyzed the constitutional prohibition against local laws under  Article III, Section 56 of the Texas Constitution. The court analyzed the legislative debate and the author’s stated intended purpose. The court determined the section was bracketed and intended to address Tyler and regulated its affairs as a local law. The court further determined none of the constitutional exceptions from the prohibition applied. “The City of Tyler’s legislative strategy to uniquely exempt itself from the operation of Water Code Section 13.247(a) was a violation of the Texas Constitution’s default preference for laws of general applicability and general prohibition of local laws.”  As a result, it held §13.2475 unconstitutional.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justice Keyes, Justice Bland, Justice Massengale. Opinion by Justice Massengale.

Mandamus action: Pre-suit discovery precluded as petitioner did not support the petition with evidence and trial court failed to issue mandatory findings

In Re: City of Tatum, Texas, 12-18-00285-CV (Tex. App. – Tyler, December 21, 2018)

This is a writ of mandamus original proceeding where the Tyler Court of Appeals conditionally granted the City’s relief and precluded a potential party from taking pre-suit depositions pursuant to Rule 202.

Peterson filed a petition for a pre-suit deposition of the police chief pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. The grounds for the deposition are that Peterson asserts a Tatum police officer sexually assaulted her when the officer arrived in response to a call for assistance at the home. She alleged that the City knew the officer “exhibited indicators” of this type of behavior; negligently hired, trained, controlled, supervised, and monitored the officer; did not have a policy to prevent such behavior and she anticipated being a party to a lawsuit involving the City. The City objected.  The trial court signed an order allowing the deposition and the City filed this original mandamus proceeding.

Pre-suit discovery is not intended for routine use; it creates practical and due process problems because discovery demands are made of individuals or entities before they are told of the issues. Rule 202.4 states a trial court must order a pre-suit deposition to be taken only if it finds: (1) allowing the deposition may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit (to be used if the purpose is to collect evidence for a lawsuit )or (2) the likely benefit to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure (to be used in order to investigate if a claim even exists). The verified statements in a Rule 202 petition are not considered competent evidence. Peterson presented no evidence to support possible claims to investigate or collect. That a party (i.e. City) may be in possession of evidence pertinent to the subject matter of the anticipated action or to the petitioner’s potential claims does not alleviate the petitioner of her burden of providing evidence to support a Rule 202 request for pre-suit depositions. Further, the order does not contain the findings required to make it a proper order. The Texas Supreme Court has made clear that Rule 202.4 findings cannot be implied from the record and the findings are mandatory. Because the requirements of Rule 202.4 are mandatory, the City’s failure to object in the trial court does not result in waiver. The court conditionally granted the writ and stated an unconditional writ will issue only if the trial court’s order is not corrected.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Memorandum opinion by Justice Neeley. The attorney for the City is listed as Darren K. Coleman.  The attorney for Peterson is listed as Ron Adkison.

Texas Supreme Court disposes of various natural gas compressor taxation suits by holding taxing location is inventory yard, not temporary physical locations

Ward County Appraisal District v EES Leasing, et al, 15-0965 (Tex. Nov. 16, 2018)

The Texas Supreme Court issued several connected opinions relating to the proper taxing entity for compressor equipment and pipelines.

EXLP Leasing owns and leases out compressor stations used to deliver natural gas into pipelines, with some of the pipelines located in Ward County and some in Midland County. EXLP began paying taxes on the compressors located in Ward County to Midland County, where EXLP contends it “maintain[s] a yard from which its inventory … is leased, to which leased compressors are returned after [the] leases expire[s], and where the inventory in the area is serviced.” But Ward County continued to tax full market value. EXLP Leasing filed suit arguing Tax Code provisions amended in 2012 are unconstitutional on their face and as applied because the statutory formula for valuing leased heavy equipment bears no relationship to any measure of market value as required by the Texas Constitution.  The Court, on October 10, 2018, issued an opinion in EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Galveston Central Appraisal District, 554 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2018), which disposed of the issues by holding taxable situs for dealer-held heavy equipment was the location where the dealer maintained its inventory, rather than the various locations where leased equipment might have otherwise been physically located.

The Court adopted its reasoning in EXLP Leasing to the varying claims and facts in the consolidated cases. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Tax Code provisions but held EXLP neither expects nor intends for the compressors located in Ward County to permanently remain in Ward County.  Their “permanent” home is the inventory yard and therefore, the proper place for taxation of inventory.  However, specific to this case, the County argued the specific compressors were not “heavy equipment” as listed in the Tax Code. The Court held the definition of “heavy equipment” applied to self-powered machines. The Legislature intended “self-powered” to mean a piece of a machinery or equipment supplied with mechanical power through an internal motor or engine. As a result, EXLP Leasing’s engines are “heavy equipment” falling under the same Tax Code provisions.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Per Curiam opinion. Companion cases of Reeves County Appraisal District v Midcron (opinion), Reeves County Appraisal District v Valereus Compression Services (opinion) and Loving County Appraisal District v EXLP Leasing (opinion) are linking.

City not liable for takings claim because of alleged failure to enforce ordinances against neighboring property owner/developer

Quote

City of Mason v. William Robin Lee, et al.  04-18-00275-CV (Tex. App. – San Antonio, Nov. 7, 2018).

This is an interlocutory appeal in a regulatory takings case where the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the takings claims.

The Zeschs’ trust asserted they owned property adjacent to or downhill from property owned by Tyler and Reyeses. The City approved a minor plat and Reyeses began constructing a single-family residence. The Zeschs assert the development caused increase water runoff damaging the property. Additionally, the Zeschs assert the construction generated nuisance level noise and dust. They assert the City committed a regulatory taking by approving the plat, then refusing to enforce various City ordinances against Reyeses. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was denied. The City took this interlocutory appeal.

The court first noted a justiciable controversy still exists even though the Zeschs settled with Tyler and Reyes and now own the property since a question remains as to whether the Zeschs’ property was damaged due to the City’s actions. Next, to state a valid takings claim, a plaintiff generally must allege: (1) an intentional governmental act; (2) that resulted in his property being taken; (3) for public use. The crux of the Zeschs claims is that the City failed to impose applicable regulations to the subdivision and to the property owned by the Reyeses. The Texas Supreme Court and the Fourth Court have recognized “the law does not recognize takings liability for a failure to” act. A municipality’s failure to enforce applicable zoning ordinances and special permit restrictions does not constitute a regulatory taking.  The court also cited to precedent noting that if the government’s alleged affirmative conduct is nothing beyond allowing private developers to use their property as they wish, the more appropriate remedy is a claim against the private developers rather than a novel taking claim against the government.  Interestingly, in a footnote, the court held that the Penn Central analysis (applicable when a regulation unreasonably interferes with a property owner’s use and enjoyment of the property) does not apply in this type of case because the Zeschs were not complaining of regulations applied to them, but of the lack of regulations applied to others. No intentional conduct occurred so the plea should have been granted.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Justice Martinez, Justice Chapa and Justice Rios.  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rios.  The docket page with attorney information can be found here.

U.S. 5th Circuit holds promoter of sex convention had standing to sue after City passed ordinance banning convention

Quote

Three Expo Events, LLC v City of Dallas, 17-10632 (5th Cir. October 24, 2018).

This is a First Amendment case involving a sex convention where the U.S. 5th  Circuit reversed an order granting the City’s motion to dismiss.

Three Expo Events, L.L.C. (Three Expo), produces adult love- and sex-themed conventions in major cities of the nation. It held just such a convention in 2015 at the Dallas Convention Center and planned to return in 2016. The 2015 convention, which hosted near nude and sexual activities, drew protesters, but the City originally took the position it could not constitutionally preclude the event in 2016. In preparation for the convention and consistent with its business model, Three Expo formed a local entity (Exotica Dallas) to enter into and hold the lease for the convention. However, the City then passed a resolution banning the event. Three Expo filed suit against the City in federal court and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City from enforcing the resolution. The district court denied Three Expo’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and no event took place in Dallas in 2016. However, Three Expo proceeded with the suit alleging violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Bill of Attainder Clause. The City filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the trial court granted.  Three Expo appealed.

The panel first analyzed the record and determined the trial court make “clear mistakes of fact” in its findings. While the City tried to argue the interplay between Three Expos and Exotic Dallas prevented a finding the City targeted Three Expos, the “overwhelming” evidence in the record indicated the City “firmly intended to make certain that the Exxxotica convention would not be staged by anyone in the Convention Center in 2016. …Three Expo, the undisputed promoter and proposed presenter of Exxxotica 2016, was banned from presenting Exxxotica 2016” due to the totality of actions by the City. The panel held Three Expo established the three elements required for standing on each of its claims and should be permitted to proceed with its suit. The Court held the trial court committed a “manifest failure to apply the well-established principles of law governing Article III standing to the entire evidence of record in this case.” The dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for trial.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Jolly, Dennis and Elrod. Opinion by Justice Dennis. The attorney for Three Expos is listed as J. Michael Murray.  The attorney listed for the  City is James Bickford Pinson

Fort Worth Court of Appeals holds trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear civil lawsuit for wrongful arrest/malicious prosecution since Plaintiff was convicted of 1 of 3 indictments

Quote

Nathaniel Washington v. City of Arlington Police Department, R. Walsh, Taylor Ferguson, Brian Salvant, and George Mackey 02-17-00337-CV (Tex. App — Fort Worth, Oct. 4, 2018)

This is a civil rights and tort case where the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims.

Washington was arrested on three outstanding warrants for the offenses related to drugs. A jury convicted Washington of one of the drug offenses. The criminal judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. However, prior to the criminal affirmation, Washington filed suit against the police department and the prosecutors. The police department filed a summary judgment motion asserting the criminal conviction precluded Washington from bringing a civil suit. The trial court construed the motion as a plea to the jurisdiction and granted the plea. Washington appealed.

The crux of Washington’s claims against each named defendant is that law enforcement and legal counsel worked in tandem to have Washington falsely arrested and convicted of delivery of cocaine. An inmate plaintiff’s civil-rights or tort claims based on facts that, if true, would undermine the validity of his conviction are not legally cognizable unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). Washington argued the State dismissed two of the three charges and that he is not seeking release from jail, only money. Washington was arrested based on three warrants, one of which led to his conviction. Even assuming the two indictments were dismissed, the dismissals would not qualify as the relief required under Heck because Washington was validly held on the remaining warrant until his conviction.  In other words, the facts Washington sought to litigate regarding his civil suit are facts essential to his conviction.  No amount of repleading could cure these defects so Washington was not entitled to replead. The court of appeals held the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims. The dismissal was affirmed.

If you would like to read this opinion, click here. Panel consists of Justice Sudderth, Justice Gabriel and Justice Kerr. Memorandum Opinion by Gabriel. The docket page with attorney information can be found here.

U.S. 5th Circuit holds 1) IA and CID not required to share evidence and 2) disclosure of exculpatory evidence is a “trial” right, not a right before accepting a plea offer

Quote

Alvarez v City of Brownsville, 16-40772 (5th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018)

This is a §1983/jail altercation case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed a $2.3 million-dollar jury award and rendered judgment for the City. [Warning, opinion plus concurrences and dissents is a 61-page document.]

Alvarez (who was 19 at the time) was arrested for public intoxication and burglary of a vehicle. He was placed in a holding cell at the Brownsville PD.  He became disruptive and violent and officers attempted to transfer him to a padded cell to calm down. During the transfer an altercation occurred which was captured on video. An internal investigation occurred, and the video was reviewed. The IA investigation determined proper force was used to subdue Alvarez.   A simultaneous criminal track investigation also occurred for assault on a police officer.  Alvarez did not request the video and the video was not produced to Alvarez voluntarily. The PD has an internal policy where internal affairs information is not shared with the Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”).  The grand jury indicted Alvarez for assault on a public servant and he plead guilty to the charge. Upon discovering a video existed, he sued asserting the City violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)(i.e. compelled release of exculpatory information). The City filed a summary judgment motion, which was denied. A jury awarded Alvarez $2.3 million dollars in damages and the City appealed.

To establish §1983 liability there must be: (1) a policymaker; (2) an official policy; and (3) a violation of a constitutional right whose “moving force” is the policy or custom. Alvarez “must show direct causation, i.e., that there was ‘a direct causal link’ between the policy and the violation.”   For purposes of the analysis, the court assumed, without deciding, the police chief was a final policymaker and that a policy existed preventing the sharing of information between IA and CID.  However, even with those assumptions, the court held no direct causal link existed between the policy and the constitutional violation. It is undisputed the CID investigator failed to inquire about video recordings and did not possess it when performing the criminal investigation. While that may have been a sloppy investigation, that does not create a causal connection. “This series of interconnected errors within the Brownsville Police Department that involved individual officers was separate from the general policy of non-disclosure of information from the internal administrative investigations. The general policy of non-disclosure was not a direct cause of Alvarez’s injury.”  Further, the general policy of non-disclosure was not implemented with “deliberate indifference.” Additionally, “[p]lacing the final decision-making authority in the hands of one individual, even if it makes an error more likely, does not by itself establish deliberate indifference.”  The court also analyzed the impact of Alvarez’s guilty plea on his Brady claim. Citing various U.S. Supreme Court cases, the 5th Circuit held exculpatory and impeachment evidence are not required to be released at every stage of a criminal case and not necessary before the defendant takes a plea agreement. “[W]hen a defendant chooses to admit his guilt, Brady concerns subside.” Essentially, a Brady right is a trial right, not a pre-trial right.  The court did list the other federal circuits which agree with this approach and those which disagree with this approach. However, the court adopted the “trial right” approach and dismissed Alvarez’s claims as a matter of law.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Court sitting en banc. Chief Judge Carl Stewart issued the opinion. Judge Duncan, Judge Engelhardt and Judge Oldham joined the court after this case was submitted and did not participate in the decision.