Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Detectives approached people in Kinlock, Missouri, after observing apparent drug transactions. Seeing the detectives, Adams clutched his waistband and fled. Detective Hinds testified that, while in pursuit, he saw Adams brandish a semi-automatic pistol and point it at the detectives. Hinds signaled to the other detectives that he saw a firearm and ordered Adams to drop it. Adams did not comply. Hinds fired two rounds at Adams. According to several detectives, Adams dropped the firearm. Detective Becker stayed with the weapon while others continued the pursuit and apprehended Adams. Both detectives testified that while in custody, Adams made incriminating statements. Adams was indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The government moved in limine to introduce, under Rule 404(b), evidence of a 2008 felon in possession conviction and a 2005 conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, to prove his knowledge of firearms and his intent to possess a firearm. After Adams's defense elicited testimony, questioning whether Adams actually possessed the firearm, the court granted the motion, stating that "do we really think that there's anybody in the world who doesn't know what a gun is … it's … really saying propensity." The judge noted that Eighth Circuit precedent supporting admission of such evidence is ample, and “I'm just trying to ask for an explanation.” The court twice gave a limiting instruction that the jury could only consider Adams's prior convictions to show his knowledge or intent, not to show propensity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

Linares was held at the Hardin County Correctional Center at the direction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She alleges that another inmate made derogatory and “threatening statements,” which “alarmed” her; that she reported them to a sergeant and an ICE Agent; and that did not act on her concerns. Within a week, the inmate threw a lightweight, plastic chair at her. Linares said the “assault caused a significant injury on my face,” and “a great deal of head pain” for “at least two days,” and residual “pain in my right cheek for about three weeks.” She took one pain pill. A contemporaneous photo shows an injury consistent with observation of “a little red mark on her right cheek. There was no swelling or puffiness and no bleeding.” Officers did not complete an incident report “because the scratch was so minor, and because [she] was not upset, in pain, [and did not ask] for medical treatment.” Linares brought claims of failure-to-protect; failure-to-train; substantive-due-process violations; and, failure-to-have-a-custody-policy. The court dismissed the federal defendants and granted summary judgment to the county defendants. The court also granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Chavero-Linares v. Smith" on Justia Law

Police received a tip that people were selling crack cocaine from a specified address, that they drove a "new car," and identifying the license plate number. The number provided was registered to a 1994 GMC. Days later, an officer went to the address and collected trash bags next to the alley behind the residence. One contained "2 suspected marijuana roaches with green plant material inside that look[ed] and smell[ed] like marijuana, blunt material, blunt paper, 2 baggie knots, cigarillos wrappers, and a mail document from the State of Iowa … to Shaquandis Thurmond" at the same address. A field test of the suspected marijuana tested positive for THC. During surveillance, the officer saw a van parked behind the residence with the license plate number previously provided by the informant. Police records revealed that Thurmond was arrested a month earlier for possession of a controlled substance and had a juvenile criminal history including an assault and possession of a controlled substance. A search warrant issued. Upon execution, officers seized a sawed-off shotgun, marijuana and paraphernalia, and documents associated with Thurmond. After Thurmond entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of an unregistered firearm (26 U.S.C. 5845(a), 5861(d), and 5871), the Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of Thurmond’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Thurmond" on Justia Law

Batemon, represented by court-appointed counsel, pleaded nolo contendere to distributing cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). After the court announced his sentence, Batemon complained that his attorney had predicted a sentence of probation and failed to perform adequately, then declared that he was innocent. The district court relieved the attorney of his appointment and sentenced Batemon to 39 months’ imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments concerning the acceptance of the plea and the conduct of the sentencing hearing. The absence of counsel post-sentencing could not have caused prejudice. The district court apparently did err by failing to provide information required by Rule 11(b)(1)(M), but Batemon did not establish a reasonable probability that he would have proceeded to trial if the district court had satisfied the rule. The court did inform Batemon that he faced a maximum sentence of “not more than 20 years,” and told Batemon that he might “get time in the federal correction institution.” Batemon’s attorney stated that he had reviewed the sentencing guidelines with Batemon, estimated where Batemon would fall in the guidelines, and explained to Batemon how the guidelines work “in a generalized way.” Batemon confirmed counsel’s representation in open court. View "United States v. Batemon" on Justia Law

Story, an African-American inmate in Arkansas, sued four correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights during a visual body-cavity search that occurred after Story returned to the Williams Correctional Facility from the Pine Bluff unit school. Story alleges that officers told him to remove his clothes, to lift his genitals, and to bend over and spread his buttocks and that the search took place in front of other inmates and in view of security cameras so female correctional officers observed the search through a video feed. He claims that an officer called him “monkey.” The district court, screening the complaints before service of process (28 U.S.C. 1915A), dismissed them without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Story did not establish that the search violated his clearly established constitutional rights. The officers were not on clear notice that the aspects of the search to which Story objects contravened the Fourth Amendment. View "Story v. Foote" on Justia Law

The City of Little Rock issued Carrick three citations for violating municipal ordinances. In Arkansas, such citations, if contested, are initially tried to a judge and can be appealed to a jury in the state trial court, Ark. Code 16-96-112. Carrick contested the citations and was found guilty of two violations following the initial bench trial. The court imposed no punishment. Carrick then appealed to a jury, paying a $150 filing fee and a $15 "technology fee," both of which are non-refundable. After an initial mistrial, the case against Carrick was dismissed. Carrick sought a refund of the fees. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a refund; the Arkansas Supreme Court denied review. Carrick filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Arkansas Constitution, Arkansas statutes, and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The district court denied relief. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the non-refundable fees served as impermissible barriers to the exercise of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because Carrick had no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial regarding his alleged ordinance violations. View "Carrick v. Beebe" on Justia Law

A Minnesota jury convicted Martin of first-degree murder, committed at age 17. Martin received a mandatory life sentence without possibility of release. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed and rejected a challenge to the jury’s composition under Batson. Martin filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. While it was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole for defendants who commit homicide before age 18 violate the Eighth Amendment. Martin argued that Miller applied retroactively to him. The district court denied the petition. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Miller does not apply retroactively on collateral review. The Minnesota Supreme Court did not unreasonably determine that the trial court properly rejected Martin’s Batson challenge. View "Martin v. Symmes" on Justia Law

Cotton was attempting to enter an apartment complex in a violent area, "plagued with narcotic activity, robberies, [and] shootings." Police officers saw an individual throw keys off a balcony to Cotton and an unidentified male, waiting below. The property manager had instructed residents not to throw their keys to people. One officer was aware of that security provision. After the keys hit the ground, an officer yelled that Cotton and the unidentified male were not allowed to take the keys. The unidentified male grabbed the keys and walked quickly toward a door; as he was unlocking the door, the officer yelled "stop." The unidentified male finished unlocking the door, entered the complex, and pulled the door shut. Cotton did not move during this interaction. An officer approached Cotton, who appeared nervous and, according to the officer, reached for his waistband. Believing Cotton was reaching for a weapon, an officer grabbed Cotton's arms and handcuffed him. During a pat-down, a pistol was found in Cotton's waistband. Cotton was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied a motion to suppress. The Eighth Circuit affirmed: the officers conducted a constitutionally permissible seizure. View "United States v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Responding to a report of an assault that was no longer in progress, Sheriff's Deputy Olson shot and killed Capps. Capps's parents sued Deputy Olson for using excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Deputy Olson alleges Capps was charging towards him with a weapon at the time of the shooting. Capps's parents allege Deputy Olson shot Capps in the back when Capps was unarmed. Deputy Olson moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, holding that outstanding questions of fact precluded a grant of qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Deputy Olson had fair and clear warning at the time of the shooting that the use of deadly force against a suspect who did not pose a threat of serious bodily injury or death was unconstitutional. View "Capps v. Olson" on Justia Law

A guard found a letter near Porter’s former cell, addressed to the Missouri Governor. It had Porter’s name on the return address and said it contained anthrax. An inmate near the cell had threatened “to get” Porter. An investigation concluded that a different inmate wrote the letter. Officials took no further action. Three months later, Porter filed an unrelated 42 U.S.C. 1983 case. Officials then wrote a conduct violation against Porter for the anthrax threat despite the investigation months earlier. Porter timely filed a grievance, but never received a response. Porter had a second disciplinary hearing on the anthrax charge and was found “Not Guilty” with a recommendation to dismiss and expunge. The warden overruled the recommendation, reinstating his administrative segregation. Porter submitted a timely grievance, claiming retaliation for his unrelated section 1983 case. Porter was not released from segregation until he served five months. More than 14 months after Porter filed his grievance, the new warden confirmed the dismissal and expungement and apologized. Porter filed suit for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The delays in responding to Porter were unjustified, but did not prevent him from using follow-up procedures. View "Porter v. Dormire" on Justia Law