United States v. Stephens: Without a warrant, a law enforcement officer installed a battery-powered GPS device under the rear bumper of defendant’s car. While this case was pending, the Supreme Court found in US v. Jones that government instillation of a GPS on a vehicle to monitor its’ movements constitutes a “search” within the scope of the Fourth Amendment. The district court ruled that the search of defendant’s vehicle and seizure of evidence was unconstitutional; however, district court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply for this evidence because the officer “acted in good faith” in placing the GPS. The Circuit court ruled on the question of whether the district court was correct in rejecting to apply to exclusionary rule to this evidence.

Cherry, Jr. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City: After the city changed the way that pension plans are calculated, redefining cost-of-living adjustments to “variable benefits”, a group of retired Baltimore police officers sued on the basis that the change to their pensions violates the Contract Clause and Takings Clause. The lower courts ruled in favor of the City because the officers could turn to state law to find remedy.

Bostic v. Schaefer: Plaintiffs challenged a variety of Virginia laws which prohibit State-recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, effectively nullifying their laws. They claimed that the laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court supported the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and concluded that Virginia should not enforce these laws.

USA v Dawud Ali Saafir: Saafir was pulled over for speeding and was determined by the officer to be an armed and dangerous person. The officer tried to talk Saafir, a felon, into allowing a search of his vehicle, which Saafir denied. Seeing a flask in the door, the officer searched the car, claiming probable cause for alcohol being in the vehicle. Even after the search, there was no evidence of alcohol. The police found a pistol in the car and indicted Saafir for his possession of it. Saafir appealed to the Court stating the police had no probable cause to search his vehicle.

PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian. Maryland subsidized a program to establish a new power plant which would affect electricity rates. EnergyPlus filed suit arguing that the power plant is not allowed because of the restrictions set by the Federal Power’s Act, which gives the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) power over interstate electricity rates. By establishing this power plant, Maryland oversteps the power of the FERC. The District Court decided that the Maryland power plant and its subsidized program are prevented under the Federal Powers Act, ruling in favor of EnergyPlus.

Joseph P. Frankenberry v. FBI. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the government has to protect the privacy of citizens that are alive when dealing with the public release of government documents. Frankenberry filed suit stating that the FBI did not do adequate research in determining the living status of non-FBI employees when clearing documents for release. The District Court issued a summary judgment in favor of the FBI stating that the FBI did reasonable research based on the limited information they have at their disposal.

Smith v. Gilchrist, III: Smith, an assistant district attorney (ADA) filed suit against Gilchrist, an elected district attorney (DA) for firing Smith when Smith expressed opinions during his candidacy about a driving program that had potential negative affects on the DA office’s efficiency. Smith argued that he was fired for practicing his 1st Amendment Rights. The District Court granted summary judgment against Smith stating that the DA had a right to fire him based on his public comments.

Myron Williams v. City of Scranton, et al. Two SPD officers followed B. Williams into her apartment after she showed signs of being mentally unstable. After obtaining a kitchen knife and threatening the officers, she was shot and killed. William’s parents filed suit arguing the city did not offer adequate officer training in relation to dealing with mentally unstable individuals. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the SPD officers, asserting that the outcome of the case is obvious and does not need to go through a full trial.

Joseph Ollie v. James Brown. Ollie was pulled over in his van under suspicion of being involved in a local burglary. He was arrested and a warrant was obtained to search his van resulting in his conviction of multiple crimes. Ollie filed suit stating the officers had no probable cause to pull over his vehicle. The District Court ruled that probable cause justly applied to the actions of the officers for the victims of the burglary had provided an exact description of Ollie’s van and license plate number. In addition, evidence inside the van connected him to the scene of the crime.