The case involved two defendants prosecuted for possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute after their vehicles were stopped at permanent U.S. Border Patrol checkpoints away from the Mexican border, where agents discovered methamphetamine and other items during questioning and searches. The court denied the defendants' motions to suppress the evidence and statements, finding that the initial stops, referrals to secondary inspection, and questioning comported with Fourth Amendment requirements under U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte for brief immigration inquiries without individualized suspicion. However, the court ruled that permanent checkpoints cannot be used to investigate narcotics offenses absent probable cause or consent, as such use deviates materially from the checkpoints' authorized immigration-enforcement purpose. The core reasoning emphasized that routine immigration stops at these locations are permissible, but extending them to drug investigations requires separate legal justification to avoid unconstitutional expansions of authority.
The case involved defendants charged with money laundering and currency reporting violations who moved to suppress evidence obtained from a roving wiretap on defendant Petti under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11), arguing the statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it lacked the probable cause and particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The court upheld the constitutionality of the roving wiretap provision. It reasoned that the statute still requires a judge to make probable cause findings as to the identified person and the offense, while the particularity requirement is satisfied by specifying the person whose communications are targeted and showing their intent to change facilities to evade interception, rather than fixed locations or phones.
This case involved a father suing a court-appointed guardian ad litem and her sponsoring nonprofit organization, alleging that the guardian acted outside her authority and violated his constitutional rights during an investigation and reports in his child's dependency and custody proceedings. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. It reasoned that the guardian ad litem performed functions integral to the judicial process, similar to social workers and probation officers preparing reports, and was therefore entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity to protect independent fact-finding, with procedural safeguards like appeals available to address misconduct.
This case involved consolidated securities litigation in which plaintiffs asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, plus pendent state claims, arising from the sale of Nucorp securities. Some defendants reached a $41 million settlement that required court approval of its good faith and the extinguishment of contribution and indemnification claims by non-settling defendants. The court upheld the magistrate's order, finding the settlement in good faith under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6 and barring the claims under both federal and state law. The reasoning was that federal securities laws permit implied contribution rights (but not indemnification) that can be extinguished by a partial settlement representing the settling parties' fair share, evaluated through factors such as independent judicial oversight, settlement adequacy, and proportionality to culpability.
In United States v. Orozco, numerous defendants charged in a 270-count indictment with conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, extortion, and related offenses moved to suppress evidence derived from eleven court-authorized wiretap orders issued over a one-year period targeting phones and locations in California, Idaho, and Florida. The court considered challenges to the orders' legality, the sufficiency of the supporting applications, and the government's post-interception procedures, with particular focus on whether intercepted communications could be disclosed and used in grand jury proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 2517. The court ruled that grand jury testimony qualifies as testimony under oath within the meaning of § 2517(3) and that § 2517(5) applies to such proceedings, requiring judicial review for statutory compliance before use of interceptions for offenses not specified in the original authorization. Its reasoning drew on the sworn nature of grand jury testimony, the Fifth Amendment's grand jury requirement, precedents from multiple circuits, and the need to prevent potential subterfuge while protecting Fourth Amendment interests prior to indictment.
The case concerned cross-motions for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of California Labor Code § 1153(c), which permits union-shop agreements in agricultural employment but defines membership to require satisfaction of all reasonable terms set by the union, including good standing under its constitution and bylaws. Agricultural workers covered by such an agreement sued, arguing that the provision infringed their First Amendment rights to free speech and association by giving unions excessive control over continued employment. The court held the statute unconstitutional, finding it constituted state action that failed strict scrutiny because it did not advance a compelling interest through the least intrusive means; unlike the federal NLRA, which limits termination to nonpayment of dues, the California law allowed subjective union determinations that chilled protected rights without adequate safeguards.