May was quiet; aside from the seismic win in Pope, there were only a few cases of potential interest to our readers:
- United States of America v. Emanuel Dameron, No. 22-3291: This case is notable for what it chooses not to resolve. It’s also a potentially terrifying reminder of what police surveillance looks like in our modern world. Dameron came to the attention of police when he was spotted “milling about” on a public street. Spotted how? Spotted by an officer viewing a live surveillance video feed, of course. The officer was able to do so given Chicago’s usage of surveillance cameras in certain “high crime” neighborhoods. The camera in question clearly had excellent resolution, as the officer viewing the feed claimed he could see an object which “resembled” a gun in Dameron’s waistband. He therefore alerted a “tactical team” conveniently positioned nearby. After Dameron boarded a bus, officers stopped that vehicle, boarded it, and promptly frisked Dameron. The trial court concluded the video + the high crime area = reasonable suspicion. On appeal, the Court recognizes a lively dispute within the briefs about an interesting and novel issue. Dameron argues that there’s a Second Amendment issue here, because there’s nothing in these facts that would have led the officers to suspect he was not permitted to exercise his 2A rights. The Court acknowledges that while the case therefore presents “challenging questions about how Second Amendment standards after Heller and Bruen interact with applications of Terry,” there is an easier way out. Dameron boarded a city bus; under Illinois law, no one–not even lawful CCW licensees–can take a gun on board. Thus, there was obvious reasonable suspicion and the Court easily affirms.
- United States of America v. Otho Harris, No. 23-1294: Harris responded poorly to being told that Boost Mobile could not repair his broken phone: He tried to burn the store to the ground. His only issue on appeal concerns restitution. However, because he told the judge, at sentencing, that he had reviewed the presentencing report and was not contesting the accuracy of its contents, the Court holds that he waived any procedural challenge to the imposition of restitution given that the restitution amount was discussed within that PSR.
- Charles Brumitt v. Sam Smith, No. 23-1321: Sam Smith, a police officer, came upon Charles Brumitt late one evening. Brumitt was egregiously intoxicated and resting on a utility box in the parking lot of a bar. Brumitt responded unfavorably to being confronted by Smith. Smith then tried to take a debit card out of Brumitt’s rear pocket to ascertain his identity. Brumitt became enraged that Smith was “reach[ing] in [his] butt.” Brumitt drunkenly slapped Smith. Smith, a competitive fighter who holds several black belts, grabbed Brumitt by the shirtfront and repeatedly punched him in the face until he was unconscious. Brumitt’s injuries were severe and required surgery. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit overturns the lower court’s order that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity. Although officers cannot continue to beat suspects once they are subdued, Smith’s rapid fire punch attack meant that he didn’t realize he knocked Brumitt unconscious until after the punches stopped. Accordingly, police did not violate a clearly established right; Smith’s decision to batter a suspect into unconsciousness with the concluding tag that “You don’t hit me” are acts which are protected under the judicially-created doctrine of qualified immunity.
