Summaries of Selected Opinions, 1019 COBJ, Vol. 48, No. 9 Pg. 106

PositionVol. 48, 9 [Page 106]

48 Colo.Law. 106

Summaries of Selected Opinions

Vol. 48, No. 9 [Page 106]

Colorado Lawyer

October, 2019

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-3169. United States v. Patton. 6/24/2019. D.Kan. Judge Madieson.

Relevant Conduct— Robbery Sentencing Guideline—Official Victim Sentencing Guideline—Otherwise Accountable— Immediate Flight.

Defendant was the getaway driver in an armed robbery. Police officers apprehended him shortly after the robbery, but his accomplice, Harris, remained at large. An hour after defendant was arrested, Harris shot a detective who was investigating the robbery. Defendant pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery and carrying a firearm during the robbery. At sentencing, based on Harris's shooting of the detective, the district court increased defendant's U.S. Sentencing Guidelines advisory sentencing range by applying the Robbery Guideline, § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C), for infliction of permanent or life-threatening bodily injury. The court also applied the Official Victim Guideline, § 3A1.2(c)(1), for assault on a law enforcement officer. Each Guideline resulted in a six-level increase under the Sentencing Guidelines.

On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's decision to increase his sentencing offense level under the Robbery Guideline because the shooting was not his relevant conduct. A defendant's relevant conduct may include an associates actions during flight. Harris's shooting of the detective was defendant's relevant conduct because it was within the scope of defendant's agreement to commit robbery, in furtherance of the robbery, and foreseeable. The district court did not err in applying the Robbery Guideline's increase to defendant's offense level.

Defendant also challenged the district court's decision to increase his sentencing offense level under the Official Victim Guideline because (1) the shooting was not his relevant conduct, (2) he was not otherwise accountable for the shooting, and (3) the shooting did not occur during the immediate flight from the robbery. First, as stated above, Harris's shooting of the detective was defendant's relevant conduct. Second, the Official Victim Guideline applies to assaults on a law enforcement officer by a defendant or a person for whose conduct the defendant is otherwise accountable, and "otherwise accountable" is determined by the definition of relevant conduct. Third, under the Official Victim Guideline, the assault must take place during the course of the offense or immediate flight therefrom. Here, the district court determined that there was no break in causation between the flight from the robbery and the shooting, so the shooting was part of the immediate flight from the robbery. Accordingly, the district court did not err in increasing defendant's sentencing offense level under the Official Victim Guideline. The sentence was affirmed.

No. 18-1056. Colbruno v. Kessler. 7/2/2019. D.Colo. Judge Hartz. Public Exposure of Naked Body—Pretrial Detainee—Legitimate Governmental Purpose—Qualified Immunity.

Plaintiff was in jail awaiting trial when he suffered a psychotic episode during which he swallowed metal components of an emergency call box in his cell. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that deputies in the Denver Sheriff's Department took more than two hours to transport him to the hospital. During transport to the hospital, plaintiff urinated and defecated on his clothes. Sheriff's deputies removed plaintiff's clothing and walked him into the hospital and through its public areas completely unclothed, except for a pair of mittens, before chaining him to a bed. Plaintiff was not treated immediately.

Plaintiff sued the six deputies involved in the incident (defendants), alleging violation of his due-process rights. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion.

On appeal, defendants argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity. They contended that plaintiff needed urgent medical care, so finding another covering for him before transporting him through the hospital would have taken too much time and effort. The Tenth Circuit assessed plaintiff's claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Exposing a person's naked body involuntarily is a severe invasion of personal privacy, so defendants' alleged conduct constituted a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The only issue was whether the exposure of plaintiff's body was rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or was excessive in relation to that purpose. The Tenth Circuit concluded that it is common sense that acquiring replacement clothing at the hospital would have taken only minutes, and it is reasonable to infer from their long delay in transporting plaintiff that defendants' actions were not based on a medical need so pressing that they had no time to get a covering for plaintiff. Plaintiff's complaint alleges facts supporting the inference that the public exposure of his naked body was unjustifiable and therefore states a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity up to the point that defendant was chained to the hospital bed. However, at that point, plaintiff's status as one facing criminal charges and the apparent risk he posed to himself provided a legitimate purpose for the constraints.

The order was affirmed except to the extent that plaintiff's claim is based on his treatment after being taken to his hospital room.

No. 18-2112. A.N. ex rel. Ponder v. Syling. 7/8/2019. D.N.M. Judge Briscoe. Equal Protection—Release of Juvenile's Arrest Information— Qualified Immunity—Clearly Established Law.

A.N. was arrested pursuant to a search warrant when she was 16 years old. On the day of her arrest, two adults were arrested and charged with the same crime. Four days later, the Alamogordo Police Department (APD) prepared and provided to media a news release that included information related to A.N. and posted the release on the APD's Facebookpage. Various media organizations published the news release. A.N.'s mother complained to the APD, and it removed the references to A.N. from its Facebookpage, but information regarding A.N. and her arrest remains publicly available today on Internet sites.

A.N. and her mother (plaintiffs) sued various APD officers and employees (defendants) for equal protection violations. Plaintiffs asserted that defendants treated A.N. and others age 16 or 17 differently from similarly situated juveniles age 15 or younger with respect to publicly...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT