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

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

Defendant was convicted of attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), and 1594(a), and attempted enticement of a minor for sexual activity using a facility of interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b). Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress and his conviction on numerous grounds.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling and denied Defendant's motion to suppress and affirmed his conviction.  Defendant argued that law enforcement’s warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures.  The court held that a reasonable person could believe Defendant committed or was committing a crime and the facts sufficiently establish probable cause to believe that Defendant was attempting to commit sex trafficking crimes. Defendant further argued that his indictment was insufficient because he contends his crimes cannot be based on a non-existent victim. The court held that caselaw states a defendant may commit both attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor and attempted enticement of a minor for sexual activity using a facility of interstate commerce.  Next, Defendant argued insufficient evidence supported either conviction. Here, the evidence sufficiently showed Defendant’s subjective intent to engage in a commercial sex act with someone he believed to be a minor. Moreover, the evidence showed Defendant knowingly used two facilities of interstate commerce, to try to entice a fictitious minor female to engage in illegal sexual activity and then took a substantial step toward committing the offense by driving to the meeting spot. View "United States v. Carlocito Slim" on Justia Law

After being pulled over, Defendant and his vehicle were searched, revealing a pistol and cocaine contained in various packaging materials. Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug transaction, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, an expert testified for the government that the narcotics in question were "possessed with the intent to distribute." Defendant did not object at the time.Reviewing for plain error, the Eighth Circuit determined that the district court erred in admitting the expert's testimony, but affirmed Defendant's conviction. While the expert's testimony was prohibited opinion evidence, given the other evidence supporting the jury's verdict, the error did not affect Defendant's substantial rights. The court also held the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, rejecting Defendant's sufficiency challenge. View "United States v. Emanuel Cowley, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendants, Des Moines Police Department officers, lacking probable cause, took relatives of a stabbing victim to the station and held them for over three hours during which time the victim died. The district court denied qualified immunity, ruling for the family on their claims of illegal seizure and false arrest.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court held both the duration and the nature of the seizure at issue exceeded the bounds of the Constitution.   The court reasoned that officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation, such that a reasonable official would have known that his actions were unlawful.  Here, the officers seized the family against their will and without probable cause. There was no “reasonable ground” for the officers’ action.   The court concluded that there was no minimally-intrusive Terry stop and the detention was the most intrusive means of questioning survivors after a violent crime. Further, officers of the Des Moines Police Department were on notice that they could not detain someone for questioning against their will, even in a homicide investigation, absent probable cause.  The same evidence establishes the officers’ violation of sec. 1983 and the Fourth Amendment establishes a violation of the Iowa Constitution. View "Crysteal Davis v. Trevor Spear" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, described as “political candidates, political associations, and individuals who engage in political activities relating to political elections and campaigns in Minnesota”, brought a case under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to assert a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge to Minn. Stat. Section 211B.02. Plaintiffs sued four Minnesota county attorneys with the authority to criminally prosecute violations of 211B.02. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the county attorneys from enforcing 211B.02 pending the district court’s entry of final judgment. The district court denied the motion.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction holding that Defendants had not enforced the statute and had not threatened to do so and were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court reasoned that the record showed that after the motion-to-dismiss stage and in response to Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion, the four county attorneys filed substantially similar affidavits providing that they had “no present intention” to prosecute anyone for violating 211B.02. Further, because county officials’ affidavits all show that they have not enforced or threatened to enforce 211B.02 the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Immunity is inapplicable. View "Minnesota RFL Caucus v. Mike Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, Defendant consented to a video sentencing hearing. After reviewing the pre-sentence report, Defendant's evidence of mitigation and the relevant sentencing factors, the court sentenced Defendant to the statutory maximum term of incarceration.On appeal, Defendant claimed that the district court violated his right to counsel and his right to meaningful allocation by muting the audio portion of the recording two times during the sentencing hearing. The Eighth Circuit rejected Defendant's argument, finding that the muting did not implicate Due Process concerns. Defendant's attorney was able to argue on his behalf while the audio was muted and Defendant had subsequent opportunity to allocate.The court also determined that Defendant's sentence was not procedurally flawed or substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Joshua Braman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and its ruling to limit the cross-examination of a law enforcement witness at trial. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and the judgment of the district court. The court held that the district court did not err in its credibility finding.Defendant argued that the arresting Trooper lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle Defendant was involved in any criminal activity and, thus, the traffic stop was unlawful. He asserted that the district court clearly erred in its credibility finding and that the trooper’s testimony was “plainly contradicted” by the squad car videos. The court held that Defendant is correct that the video footage does not confirm the Trooper’s testimony concerning each of the three traffic violations, however, nothing in the video footage undermined that testimony.Next, Defendant argued the district court improperly limited his cross-examination of the Trooper at trial. At trial court sustained the government’s objection to the defense’s line of questioning regarding the Trooper and his DRE training, specifically about allegations that officers participating in the training program supplied drugs to young people in Minneapolis. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion to curtail the inquiry. View "United States v. Pierre Stewart" on Justia Law

The president of the Christian Action League of Minnesota (“CAL”), an antipornography advocacy group, frequently contacts those who advertise in a local newspaper. CAL believes that, since the paper runs advertisements for sexually oriented businesses, those who advertise in the paper are endorsing those businesses.CAL’s president continually contacted an attorney who advertised in the paper. The attorney filed a petition for a harassment restraining order ("HRO") under Minnesota Statute Sec. 609.748(2). The statute allows victims to obtain restraining orders against their harassers. CAL brought a pre-enforcement challenge against the Hennepin County Attorney, arguing that the Sec. 609.748(2) violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss.The Eighth Circuit held that CAL’s complaint does not allege an intention to engage in conduct proscribed by a statute, thus CAL lacks standing. The court reasoned that the Minnesota Supreme Court would not interpret Sec. 609.748(2)'s definition of “harassment” to cover CAL’s speech. As such, nothing CAL wants to do is criminalized by the Statute. Further, because there is no allegation that the County Attorney has enforced the Statute against CAL’s protected speech or has any plans to do so, the Plaintiff lacks standing. View "Christian Action League of MN v. Mike Freeman" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals the district court’s imposition of a 66-month sentence for illegal possession of a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence that he knew he was a prohibited person under any category; the prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial by misstating the presumption of innocence, and his sentence was improperly enhanced because the Iowa assault conviction is not a “crime of violence.”The court found that there is sufficient evidence of an intimate partnership, including evidence of the no-contact order itself, with the state judge’s finding that Defendant and the victim met the federal definition of intimate partners. Next, the court found that the no-contact order here was issued as part of the judgment agreed to by Defendant, who was represented by counsel, in his guilty plea. Third, the court held that Iowa presumes that a no-contact order “has force and effect until it is modified or terminated by subsequent court action.” In Iowa, the absence of a record can prove the nonoccurrence of an act or event, here the nonoccurrence of any modification or termination of the no-contact order. Thus, the court held the evidence was sufficient to find that Defendant possessed a firearm with knowledge that he was subject to a no-contact order involving an intimate partner. Further, Defendant has not shown that the improper remarks prejudiced his right in obtaining a fair trial. Finally, increase to Defendant’s base offense level under Sec. 2K2.1(a), if error at all, was harmless. View "United States v. Junior Roldan Marin" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of sexual abuse of an incapacitated victim. On appeal, Defendant challenges one pretrial evidentiary ruling by the district court and one of its directives at trial.Defendant argued that the district court erred in allowing the government to elicit testimony from the victim and her mother regarding the victim’s suicide attempt. Defendant’s primary argument was that the testimony lacked sufficient probative value to overcome its potential prejudicial effect on the jury as it determined whether the victim was sexually assaulted. The court found that the district court adequately addressed Defendant’s concern, noting that “the testimony is unlikely to be so provocative as to divert the jury’s attention from the central sexual abuse allegation.” The court found that due to the temporal and causal proximity of the victim’s suicide attempt in relation to Defendant’s conduct, the evidence was probative and not unfairly prejudicial.Next, Defendant claimed that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court impermissibly restricted his cross-examination of both the victim and her mother. However, ultimately, the jury acquitted Defendant of aggravated sexual abuse, but it found him guilty of abuse of an incapacitated victim. That the jury convicted him of only one count but not the other indicates that it was able to make an appropriate determination based on the evidence. Thus, the court affirmed the district court ruling. View "United States v. Paul Cavanaugh" on Justia Law