Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In the case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the defendant, Robert Whipple, appealed the denial of his motions to suppress evidence. Whipple was charged with bank robbery for three incidents that occurred in March 2020. He claimed that law enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they subpoenaed Walmart for his purchase history, searched his phone after the expiration of the warrant for his phone, and unlawfully seized his car.The court affirmed the district court's denial of Whipple’s motions to suppress evidence, finding no merit in his claims. The court held that the subpoena for Whipple's specific purchase at Walmart, which was linked to the robbery, did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The court concluded that Whipple did not demonstrate a legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy in his specific purchase and subscriber information. His information was not automatically disclosed; instead, he actively and voluntarily disclosed his information to Walmart, and thus the third-party doctrine applied.Regarding the seizure and subsequent search of his car, the court applied the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which allows law enforcement to seize and search an automobile where there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the car. The court held that there was probable cause to believe that Whipple used his car during the bank robberies and that it contained evidence of those crimes.Lastly, the court held that the search of Whipple’s cellphone was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, despite being conducted after the initial warrant had expired. The court noted that the federal rules of criminal procedure permit law enforcement to conduct searches of lawfully seized phones after they are seized, and a warrant's execution date does not apply to off-site investigation and analysis of a cellphone's contents. View "United States v. Whipple" on Justia Law

In a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs Mark Bambach and his minor children sued defendants Gina Moegle and Susan Shaw, employees of Michigan's Children’s Protective Services, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that Moegle and Shaw violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by removing the children from Bambach's custody without a warrant and failing to return them after Bambach revoked his consent for the children to stay with their mother during an investigation into allegations of child abuse. The court found that no clearly established law put the state defendants on notice that they were violating the Bambach's Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment rights. The court determined that the key factual dispute underpinning the remaining claims was whether Bambach’s children were removed from his custody without his consent from December 29, 2015, to January 14, 2016. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine that Bambach had revoked his consent to his children’s placement with their mother by expressing to Moegle that he wanted to see his children and wanted to know when they would be back. But the court did not assess whether those constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violations. The court found that Moegle and Shaw were entitled to qualified immunity as they could not have been on notice that their actions were unconstitutional. The court reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and remanded for entry of an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants. View "Bambach v. Moegle" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the United States in a case involving civil penalties for failure to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). The defendant, James J. Kelly Jr., was a U.S. citizen who had a bank account in Switzerland with a balance exceeding $10,000, which required him to file an FBAR with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Failure to do so risks civil penalties. The government sued Kelly for willfully failing to timely file FBARs for 2013, 2014, and 2015. The district court granted summary judgment to the government.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Kelly's failure to comply with his FBAR obligations was reckless, if not knowing. The court argued that Kelly had taken steps to intentionally evade his legal duties and acted with objective recklessness. Despite being aware of his FBAR obligations and participating in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), Kelly failed to ensure that the FBARs were submitted. His failure to consult with any professionals about his tax obligations and his considerable efforts to keep his account secret were further evidence of his willful violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. Thus, the court concluded that Kelly's failure to satisfy his FBAR requirements for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015 was a willful violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. View "United States v. Kelly" on Justia Law

In this case, Autumn Wind Lending, LLC (Autumn Wind) had lent money to Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC (Insight) under an agreement that Insight would not incur any further debt without Autumn Wind's consent. However, Insight defaulted on the loan and filed for bankruptcy, during which it was revealed that it had taken on additional debt from other parties, including John J. Siegel and three family enterprises. Autumn Wind, which had become the parent company of Insight, then filed a lawsuit against these parties, alleging fraud and tortious interference. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was asked to decide whether the doctrine of res judicata, which bars relitigation of a claim that has been adjudicated, prevented Autumn Wind from bringing these claims. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar Autumn Wind from bringing its claims. The court reasoned that the claims had not been "actually litigated" because they were dismissed by stipulation in the bankruptcy court, not decided on the merits. Furthermore, Autumn Wind could not have litigated these claims in the bankruptcy court because it was not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings. The court therefore reversed the district court's dismissal of Autumn Wind's claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Autumn Wind Lending, LLC v. Siegel" on Justia Law

Stephen Caudle, a truck driver for Hard Drive Express, Inc., sued his employer alleging that he was fired in retaliation for attempting to report unlawful employment practices. The case focuses on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), with Caudle arguing that his firing was a response to his complaints about Hard Drive's failure to reimburse him for time and money spent on repairs. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the employer, interpreting Caudle's complaints as related only to Hard Drive's paid-time-off policy, and therefore not protected under FLSA or WPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision, holding that there was a genuine factual dispute about whether Caudle's complaints were about vacation pay or the company's failure to compensate him for repairs. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Caudle's complaints could have put the company on notice of potential violations of the FLSA, and therefore his firing could be seen as a violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA and Michigan WPA. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Caudle v. Hard Drive Express, Inc." on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals considered an indemnification case between Nissan, an automobile manufacturer, and Continental, a brake parts supplier. Nissan sought indemnification from Continental for a $24 million jury award and $6 million in attorney fees and costs resulting from a products liability lawsuit in California. The lawsuit arose after an accident involving a Nissan vehicle, with the jury finding that the design of the vehicle’s braking system caused harm to the plaintiffs. Nissan argued that a provision in their contract with Continental obligated Continental to indemnify them for the jury award and litigation costs. Both the district court and the Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the contract required Nissan to show that a defect in a Continental-supplied part caused the injury, which Nissan failed to do. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Continental. View "Nissan North America, Inc. v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the defendant, Phillip Cabbage, was convicted for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Cabbage had been orchestrating drug shipments from cartel suppliers to street-level dealers. During his sentencing, he initially objected to a three-level enhancement recommended by the probation officer on the grounds that he did not have control over another person. However, he later withdrew this objection and agreed to a two-level enhancement. Cabbage was sentenced to 210 months in prison, within the Guidelines range calculated with the two-level enhancement.On appeal, Cabbage argued that the two-level enhancement should not have been applied, thereby challenging the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. The court held that because Cabbage had agreed to the enhancement and subsequently withdrew his objection to it, the doctrine of invited error applied. Cabbage had contributed to any mistake by agreeing to the role enhancement. The court emphasized that parties in an adversarial system bear the burden of proving facts and presenting their best case. Therefore, if a party agrees that a certain set of facts presents their best case, it is not a manifest injustice for a court to hold them to that agreement. The court concluded that factual errors agreed to by the defendant are not sufficiently grave to constitute manifest injustice. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision and held Cabbage to his agreement. View "United States v. Cabbage" on Justia Law

The case involves Jason Kechego, an inmate at a federal detention center in Michigan, who was convicted of second-degree murder for killing fellow inmate Christian Maire. Kechego appealed against several of the district court's rulings during his trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court. The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to hold a Remmer hearing, a hearing to examine whether the verdict was tainted by external influences. The court also held that the district court did not err in accepting a partial verdict, where the jury unanimously convicted Kechego of second-degree murder, acquitted him of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and failed to reach unanimity on conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.The court further held that the district court did not err in refusing to give a voluntary-manslaughter instruction, as there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on the lesser offense. The court also affirmed the district court's exclusion of Kechego's expert's testimony on retrograde extrapolation, a technique for estimating prior blood-alcohol content based on a later measurement, which was done as a discovery sanction. Finally, the court held that any error in excluding evidence of a phone call that Kechego received two weeks before the killing was harmless. View "United States v. Kechego" on Justia Law

Chinyere Ogbonna-McGruder, an African American professor, alleged that her employer, Austin Peay State University (APSU), and her supervisors engaged in racial discrimination and created a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her when she opposed their unlawful conduct. She also claimed that her supervisors violated her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim. The court ruled that Ogbonna-McGruder failed to sufficiently allege that the harassment she experienced was severe or pervasive, a necessary element of a hostile work environment claim. The court also found that she did not sufficiently allege that any adverse employment actions were motivated by discriminatory animus, and that she did not adequately assert that the conduct forming the basis of her §1983 claim violated a specific constitutional provision. View "Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State Univ." on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Kingsley Owusu, who was seeking asylum and withholding of removal from the United States. Owusu, originally from Ghana, claimed that he had suffered three violent incidents in his home country due to his political affiliations, leading him to fear future persecution. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals both found that Owusu had failed to demonstrate that the Ghanaian government was unable or unwilling to address the harm he faced from private actors, that his past incidents did not constitute persecution, that he could not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, and that he could avoid persecution by relocating within Ghana. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that for Owusu to be eligible for asylum or withholding, he must show state action, either by demonstrating that his persecutor is a state actor or that the Ghanaian government was unable to protect him. The court found that Owusu failed to meet this burden, as he presented no compelling evidence that the Ghanaian police would either persecute him or fail to protect him from persecution. As such, the court denied Owusu's petition for review. View "Owusu v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law