In United States v. DeJesus Ortiz, the district court considered whether a 2-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) should apply to defendant Galio E. Dejesus Ortiz after his guilty plea to marijuana distribution offenses. The facts showed that the defendant had arranged to use a vacant house he controlled to receive an 82-kilogram shipment of marijuana, but the house was used only once before his arrest. The court overruled the government's objection to the presentence report and declined to impose the enhancement, reasoning that the guideline requires the defendant to have "maintained" the premises for drug distribution, a term interpreted under related statutes and precedent to demand use over a sustained period of time rather than a single occasion.
In United States v. Williams, defendant Austin moved to suppress evidence seized from the apartment he shared with his girlfriend after he and co-defendant Williams were charged with two counts of bank robbery and two counts of carrying firearms during a crime of violence. The district court granted the motion to suppress. The court reasoned that the officers lacked a warrant, that consent from the girlfriend was invalid because it resulted from an unlawful traffic stop lacking reasonable suspicion, and that the search could not be upheld as a parole search because the officers had no prior knowledge of Austin's parole status or that the apartment was his residence.
In United States v. Swanson, defendant Thomas L. Swanson was charged with possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). He moved to suppress the weapon and related statements, arguing that a state court order requiring him to surrender firearms as a condition of pretrial release on an unrelated misdemeanor charge violated his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. It concluded that the police officer acted in good faith reliance on the facially valid court order when obtaining the evidence, and that neither the Fourth nor Fifth Amendment was violated; even if a violation had occurred, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply because the rule targets police misconduct rather than judicial error.
The case involves plaintiffs suing a labor union for allegedly violating the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act by obtaining and using personal information from Illinois motor vehicle records without consent. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and class certification on behalf of millions of Illinois drivers. The court denied the motion for class certification, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a), as there was insufficient evidence that the union obtained personal information of a sufficiently large number of individuals from the records. The court allowed refiling if numerosity could be shown along with other factors.
The case involved a company suing another for sending an unsolicited one-page fax advertisement, claiming violations of the TCPA for the fax itself, the common-law tort of conversion for the paper and toner used, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The court granted the motion to dismiss the conversion and consumer-fraud counts. It reasoned that the alleged injury was de minimis and therefore not actionable under the conversion doctrine, and that the consumer-fraud claim likewise failed because the minimal harm did not meet the statute's requirements.
In this case, plaintiff Gloria Rodas sued SwedishAmerican Health System Corp., the United States, and two doctors alleging medical negligence in the delivery and subsequent death of her infant on August 2, 2001. The defendant doctors moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under the Illinois Good Samaritan Act because they responded to an emergency labor situation without charging or expecting any fee for their services. The court granted the motions, holding that the doctors' actions met the Act's criteria for immunity as they provided care in good faith during an emergency without direct compensation, even though one doctor was on backup call through a clinic agreement and the other assisted without billing documentation.