Latest 2 Cases: Harer v. Casey (Civil Rights), United States v. Lyons (Criminal Law)

How the EEOC’s Maintenance of an “Alleged Offenders” Log Can Help Prevent the Next Harvey Weinstein

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JOSEPH SCOPELITIS

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and recent graduate Joseph A. Scopelitis argue that the EEOC should maintain a log of “alleged offenders” to help prevent the next Harvey Weinstein. Estreicher and Scopelitis explain why such a log would effectively balance the interests of the alleged offender and victim, the employer, and the public.

Read More

Harer v. Casey

Docket: 19-3334

Opinion Date: June 12, 2020

Judge: Joel Martin Flaum

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Samantha died from a gunshot wound to the head. The coroner concluded Samantha committed suicide. Samantha’s parents, the Harers' claim Samantha’s boyfriend, Flores—a Crest Hill, Illinois police officer—murdered Samantha during an argument at her home in neighboring Channahon. The Harers sued Flores for wrongful death and other torts and Crest Hill for its alleged unconstitutional practice of concealing officers’ misconduct, which the Harers allege emboldened Flores to kill Samantha. The Harers also sued Channahon and police officers, asserting these defendants denied the Harers their constitutional right of access to court when they engaged in a cover-up to protect Flores. The Channahon defendants moved to dismiss the access claim, arguing they did not prevent the Harers from initiating a wrongful death lawsuit against Flores within the statute of limitations. The court denied the motion, holding that the Channahon defendants still frustrated their judicial access by delaying the Harers’ suit and costing them money; clearly-established law prohibited the officers’ conduct, so qualified immunity did not shield the officers. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The backward-looking access-to-court claim is untenable because the underlying tort claims are timely, facially plausible, and still pending; their access claim is not ripe for review. Post-filing conduct generally cannot serve as a basis for an access-to-court claim.

United States v. Lyons

Dockets: 19-2101, 19‐2090

Opinion Date: June 12, 2020

Judge: Diane Pamela Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

DHS’s Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) notified Agent Harrington about an airplane that would be landing at the Litchfield Municipal Airport. Harrington concluded that the plane might be smuggling drugs, and called Lieutenant Jarman for a drug‐detection dog. Lyons landed the Cessna at around 12:05 a.m. Eymann and Lyons loaded its cargo into the airport’s courtesy car and left the airport. Officers followed that car and blocked it in. Eymann admitted that he had a small amount of marijuana in the car. The drug‐dog (Arie) arrived and alerted on luggage, which the officers searched, finding a small amount of marijuana. Harrington frisked Lyons, who had $2,600 in his pocket. Officers arrested the men and returned to the airport. Arie alerted at the Cessna and on bags from inside the plane. Officers found 65 pounds of marijuana and a firearm. The court suppressed the evidence because, although Arie had completed the necessary training, his certification had lapsed weeks earlier. The state dismissed the charges. The two were then charged with federal conspiracy to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute,. Lyons was also charged with carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress. The AMOC information established reasonable suspicion. Because the officers used little show‐of‐force, kept their questioning reasonable, and acted consistently with investigatory detention, a reasonable person would not have understood that his freedom was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest before the handcuffing. Eymann's admission gave the officers probable cause to search the car. Once the marijuana was found, there was probable cause to arrest Eymann. The inevitable‐discovery doctrine then applied.