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

Plaintiff sued Defendant, a law enforcement officer employed by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Martinez claims that Sasse violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment by effecting a seizure through the use of excessive force. Sasse moved for judgment on the pleadings and argued that she was entitled to qualified immunity. denied the motion, reasoning that Martinez’s allegations stated a claim for the violation of a clearly established right.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant. The court concluded that Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded that Defendant violated a clearly established right, because it was not clearly established as of June 2018 that Defendant’s alleged push was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. The court explained that although the claim here alleges the use of excessive force, the parties dispute the threshold question of whether Defendant seized Plaintiff at all within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff argues that Defendant effected a seizure when she pushed Plaintiff to the ground before locking the doors to the ICE facility. Defendant maintains, however, that when an officer’s use of force is designed only to repel a person from entering a facility, there is no seizure. On that view, Plaintiff may have a tort claim against Defendant for assault or battery if the officer used unjustified force, but Defendant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "Andrea Martinez v. Ronnet Sasse" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, filed suit against Arkansas, patrolman in his individual capacity.  Plaintiffs pleaded claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the patrolman had violated their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Plaintiffs also sued the Wynne police chief, and the mayor, in their individual capacities, for failing to supervise the patrolman.   Defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The court held that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated a constitutional right that was clearly established. The court concluded that Plaintiff has not set forth evidence showing that the patrolman is responsible for the alleged Fourth Amendment violations.   Further, Plaintiffs allege that the Police Chief and Mayor are liable for the patrolman’s alleged unconstitutional acts because they had received notice of his behavior and failed to stop it. A supervising officer may be liable for the actions of his subordinates when “he (1) had ‘notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates’; (2) was deliberately indifferent to or tacitly authorized those acts; and (3) failed to take ‘sufficient remedial action’; (4) proximately causing injury to” the plaintiffs. Here, no evidence in the record supports a finding that either the Chief or Mayor subjectively knew of and deliberately disregarded a substantial risk of unconstitutional harms posed by the patrolman. View "Dana Harrison v. Brodie Faughn" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to suppress items found during a warrantless search of the apartment he shared with his girlfriend. The district court granted the motion as to the narcotics found in a black bag, concluding the search that led to the discovery of the narcotics exceeded the scope of his girlfriend’s consent to search the apartment. As to the other evidence, the court denied the motion.   The government filed an interlocutory appeal, asserting the district court erred when it focused on ownership of the bag rather than his girlfriend’s authority to give consent for the search and the Eighth Circuit reversed.   The question before the court was whether Defendant’s girlfriend had apparent authority to consent to the search of the bag. The court held that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement, which may be given by a third party with common authority or apparent authority over the premises or effects. Here, at the time of consent, law enforcement officers knew: (1) Defendant had directed his girlfriend to move the gun owned by and registered to her to a specific place within the apartment; (2) she voluntarily led the officers to the location of the gun; and (3) she had access to the bag and never indicated it was Defendant’s bag or that her ability to use or access the bag was limited. As the sole lessee, Defendant had actual and common authority over the apartment and consented to the search of the entire apartment for Fourth Amendment purposes. View "United States v. Mosley Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for various child sex trafficking, firearms, and drug charges. Forty-eight hours before trial, the government disclosed certain benefits it had provided to several minor victims. Defendant unsuccessfully sought dismissal of the indictment or, in the alternative, exclusion of the victim's testimony. Instead, the district court offered Defendant a continuance, instructed the jury accordingly and allowed broad cross-examination of the witnesses. Defendant was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 268 months in prison.Defendant appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed his convictions and sentence. The court explained that even if the government's late disclosure of benefits it had provided to the victims of Defendant's offenses was a discovery violation, the district court's chosen remedy was not an abuse of discretion. The Eighth Circuit also affirmed Defendant's sentence, finding that all three sentencing enhancements used to determine Defendant's sentence were properly applied and his 268-month sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Kendall Streb" on Justia Law

Defendant was pulled over after an officer observed excessive braking. During the stop, the officer observed both driver and passenger appeared to be nervous. Upon a subsequent pat-down, the officer observed a clear glass smoking device with burnt residue inside Defendant's open pocket. After another search, an additional 20 grams of methamphetamine were recovered from Defendant.The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. He ultimately entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 216 months in prison.On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding the officers did not unconstitutionally extend the traffic stop. The court also held that the officer was permitted to ask Defendant out of the car and that Defendant consented to the pat-down by raising his arms.The court also found that the district court did not commit any error in the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a). View "United States v. William Kennedy" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 270 months of incarceration followed by five years of supervisor release following a conviction for various drug and gun crimes. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences on all charges, rejecting each of his appellate issues.The trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The tint on Defendant's window was dark enough to give the officer reasonable suspicion that Defendant's vehicle was in violation. The second traffic stop of Defendant was also supported by probable cause because Defendant's vehicle was missing license plates and he was speeding.The court also found that the evidence against Defendant was sufficient to support his convictions and that the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Tevin Maurstad" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement for possessing any firearm in connection with another felony offense, and its decision to depart upward under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.3 based on conduct for which Defendant was acquitted.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Defendant argued that the district court clearly erred in finding that the gun facilitated the marijuana possession. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant’s gun facilitated his drug possession. Defendant possessed the gun in public, on a public road in his car, and both the gun and at least some of the drugs were easily accessible; the gun was on the passenger-side floorboard and a baggie of marijuana was found in the center console.   Next, Defendant argued that the district court erred in departing upward under Section 4A1.3 based on the conduct of which he was acquitted. The court held that the district court’s reliance on acquitted conduct to depart upward did not violate Defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Second, the Government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant recklessly used a firearm, resulting in serious injury. Third, the district court adequately explained why the applicable criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of Defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that he will commit other crimes. Finally, though Defendant disagreed with the district court’s weighing of the factors, that does not make his sentence substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. DeShaun Bullock, Jr." on Justia Law

Kansas City Officer (“Officer”) shot and killed the victim during a foot chase. Family members of the victim filed suit and the district court concluded that the Officer was entitled to both qualified and official immunity. In addition to contesting the grant of summary judgment on appeal, Plaintiffs argued they should receive a trial on their claims against the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners and the other municipal officials named in their complaint.   In evaluating the family’s excessive-force claim against the Officer, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court explained that the key issue requires answering whether the officer’s actions violated a constitutional right and then whether the right was clearly established. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court has explained that “the focus” of the clearly-established-right inquiry “is on whether the officer had fair notice that [his] conduct was unlawful.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018). Here, “judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct,” a reasonable officer would not have had “fair notice” that shooting the victim under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment.     Additionally, to prevail in this case under Kisela, the family would need to establish “the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it.” Here, the family failed to show that the Officer acted in bad faith or with malice. Finally, there is not enough evidence to find that the municipal defendants liable under a deliberate indifference theory. View "N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police" on Justia Law

A police officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle after the officer observed it traveling 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. The driver did not stop and led the officer on a high-speed chase before crashing. Two people exited the vehicle and fled. The officer pursued Defendant, who was the passenger. The officer used his taser on Defendant, who then grabbed a nearby firearm and pointed it at the officer. The officer shot Defendant, who was later indicted for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon.The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress any evidence recovered after he was tased, and a jury ultimately convicted Defendant. Defendant appealed.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. By tasing Defendant, the officer executed a warrantless arrest. However, this arrest was supported by probable cause based on the traffic stop and Defendant's subsequent flight despite the officer's demands to stop. The court determined that the officer reasonably thought that Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.The Eighth Circuit rejected Defendant's remaining challenges to his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Meamen Nyah" on Justia Law

Defendant was pulled over for speeding. Defendant and her passenger consented to a vehicle search, which revealed 28.4 pounds of heroin. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the district court denied, at which point Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing heroin with intent to distribute. Seeking safety valve relief, Defendant gave a proffer interview to law enforcement, explaining how she became involved in drug trafficking, including who recruited her and the methods used to transport the drugs, as well as how she supported herself since coming to the United States. However, at sentencing, the district court determined Defendant was not entirely truthful about the source of funds in her bank account and denied relief. The court then sentenced Defendant to 120 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. The district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The district court was entitled to make a credibility determination regarding whether Defendant was speeding. Additionally, the officer did not exceed his authority when asking Defendant out of the car and did not unreasonably delay the traffic stop. Finally, the officer's testimony that Defendant verbally consented was sufficient to establish consent, even without a signed consent form.The Eighth Circuit also held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant safety valve relief or calculating her sentencing guidelines. View "United States v. Veronica Gonzalez-Carmona" on Justia Law