Latest 2 Cases: Braswell v. Smith (Criminal Law), United States v. Moore (Criminal Law)

Another Attempt to Find Optimism in American Politics

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan continues his series of columns attempting to find optimism in what he describes as “post-constitutional life in America.” In this installment, Buchanan notes that President Trump’s reactions to COVID-19 are a reason for optimism because they reflect a fear that a pandemic (and market responses to a pandemic) could threaten his hold on the White House.

Read More

Braswell v. Smith

Docket: 19-6200

Opinion Date: March 4, 2020

Judge: Stephanie Dawn Thacker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of appellant's 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition seeking relief from his sentence via the savings clause. In United States v. Wheeler, the court set forth a four part test to determine whether an individual can seek relief from an erroneous sentence in a section 2241 habeas corpus petition via the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255(e). The district court concluded that appellant could not meet the second prong of the Wheeler test because he filed his first section 2255 motion after the applicable change in settled substantive law, even though that section 2255 motion was resolved before that change in law was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review. The court held that, in the unique circumstance where the change in settled substantive law occurred before a petitioner filed his or her first section 2255 motion, but such change was deemed retroactive after the resolution of petitioner's first section 2255 motion, petitioner satisfies the second prong of the Wheeler test. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for further proceedings.

United States v. Moore

Docket: 18-4606

Opinion Date: March 4, 2020

Judge: James Harvie Wilkinson, III

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant was stopped at a routine traffic checkpoint where officers discovered a substantial amount of illegal drugs. After defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight or more grams of crack cocaine, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by officers, holding that the routine traffic checkpoint fully complied with Fourth Amendment requirements. In this case, the primary purpose of the checkpoint was valid; the roadblock adequately advanced a significant public interest; and the checkpoint was minimally intrusive.