Latest 2 Cases: Anders v. Cuevas (Civil Rights), Dibrell v. City of Knoxville (Civil Rights)

One More for the Road: Why Congress Must Impeach Donald Trump (Again)

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, makes the case for impeaching Donald Trump again, after the failed insurrection of January 6. Falvy describes three possible ways to disempower Trump from undermining democracy in our nation and explains why immediate impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate is the most appropriate course of action.

Read More

Anders v. Cuevas

Dockets: 19-2191, 20-1165, 20-1166

Opinion Date: January 8, 2021

Judge: Donald

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

When Anders purchased Star in 2015, Star had been contracted to conduct tows for the Michigan State Police for 15 years and was on the state’s non-preference tow rotation list for Monroe County. The state police’s internal affairs division approached Anders regarding tickets to sporting events that Anders had provided to state troopers. Anders supplied a list of 18 state troopers to whom he had given tickets. Each trooper who accepted tickets was reprimanded. The troopers and others were unhappy that Anders disclosed the names. Cuevas, the commander for the Monroe County Post, informed Anders that he was removing Star from the non-preference tow rotation list. Trooper Hall pressured the Area Towing (Anders's other company) staff to reschedule its auctions. Sollars, the mayor of Taylor, Michigan, required that Area use Fiore, which was under federal investigation, for heavy-duty tows, or lose the contract. Anders was recorded on a federal wiretap speaking to Fiore. Anders revealed to federal agents that he had to work with Fiore to avoid losing the Taylor contract. Sollars vetoed a resolution to allow Area to remain on a month-to-month contract, allegedly because Anders provided information to the FBI. Ramik, a city council member, contacted Fox News, which aired a story in which Ramik accused Anders of stealing from the city. Anders and his companies filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation and Equal Protection violations. The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity on Area’s claim against Hall. Hall’s alleged “constant pressure” was not an adverse action. The court vacated the denial of qualified immunity on Anders’ Equal Protection claim against Cuevas as insufficiently pleaded but affirmed the denial as to the retaliation claim. The court affirmed the denial of immunity for Sollars and Ramik.

Dibrell v. City of Knoxville

Docket: 20-5528

Opinion Date: January 8, 2021

Judge: Murphy

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

An unknown person flagged down Knoxville Officer Whitehead, claiming that Dibrell was selling drugs out of his Chrysler at a Walgreens. Whitehead relayed this tip to three officers who went to the Walgreens and blocked in the Chrysler. An officer patted Dibrell down for weapons and told him to “hang tight.” Officers conversed with Dibrell for about three minutes. Whitehead arrived with his police dog, which alerted to the smell of drugs. The officers searched the Chrysler and found bottles containing hydrocodone, oxycodone, and alprazolam pills. The drugs did not match the bottle labels. Officers searched Dibrell and found more oxycodone pills and $800. A Tennessee state trial court denied his motion to suppress the drugs and money, reasoning that the officers had not detained Dibrell before the dog sniff. An appellate court vacated Dibrell’s convictions, finding that the officers seized Dibrell before the dog sniff and that the anonymous tip did not give them reasonable suspicion to do so. In Dibrell’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted the city and the officers summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Although Dibrell was detained (seized) without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that he committed a crime, Dibrell’s challenge to his initial seizure was untimely under rules governing the accrual of a section 1983 claim. His malicious-prosecution claim fails because the state had probable cause to initiate the criminal case once the officers found the drugs.