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

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1596 (2021), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress.The court concluded that officers had an objectively reasonable basis to enter the victim's house without a warrant. In this case, the officers were dispatched to the scene of a domestic disturbance call; an officer observed a child in an upstairs window acting excitedly and gesturing at him; the victim answered the door with visible injuries, even though she said everything was okay; and, after the officers heard crying coming from inside the house, decided to enter to provide emergency assistance. The court explained that, although the presence of a domestic violence suspect in a home with children cannot alone justify a warrantless entry, here the officers were confronted with facts indicating that the suspect was a threat to the children or others. In this case, the record establishes that the officers had reason to believe that a domestic violence suspect was inside the home with children. Furthermore, the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the officers' purpose for entry, and one of the officers had an objectively reasonable belief that a gun was inside the house. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice for attempting to influence a witness. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

After plaintiff sustained significant injuries during the course of an arrest on domestic violence and related charges, he filed suit against the arresting officers, city officials, and the City of Independence, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims.The Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Defendant Schmidli; plaintiff has shown a violation of the constitutional right to be free from excessive force by law enforcement; and a reasonable officer would have had fair warning that, at the time, he could not violently takedown a person who was not threatening anyone, not actively resisting arrest, and not attempting to flee. However, the court concluded that Defendant Gentile was entitled to qualified immunity because there was insufficient evidence that he used excessive force or significantly contributed to the driving force that caused the injury.The court also concluded that the defendant officers are entitled to summary judgment on the substantive due process claim where plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that any inaccuracy in the officers' reports was fabricated in order to frame him. Furthermore, there is no reasonable inference drawn from plaintiff's version of the facts that would allow a finder of fact to conclude that Schmidli and Gentile deliberately lied with the intention of framing him. Finally, the City was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's Monell claim where plaintiff failed to establish the City had an unofficial custom authorizing officers to use excessive force. View "McReynolds v. Schmidli" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's sentence in a case where defendant and the government entered into a plea agreement in which he stipulated that he had sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant for thirty dollars. The court agreed with defendant that the district court miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range when it found him responsible for drugs to which he had no connection. The court explained that the district court committed procedural error when it found a connection between defendant and the materials found in his girlfriend's home and car. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sarchett" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order committing defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for mental health care pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4246 after he was charged with being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the district court did not improperly discount the finding of defendant's expert regarding defendant's future dangerousness. The court explained that the district court's standard did not improperly shift the burden of proof, and that the inherent time disparity between the government experts and defendant's expert does not warrant reversal. Moreover, the district court explained that the primary reason for ordering commitment was the weakness of defendant's expert's opinion. View "United States v. Dalasta" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the warrant affidavit contained sufficient corroborated information to support a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found at defendant's house. In this case, the detective's corroboration, combined with the specificity of the anonymous source's information and physical presence before the officer and issuing judge, sufficiently established probable cause for the search warrant. The court also concluded that, because the affidavit underlying the search warrant for defendant's residence also supported probable cause to detain and arrest him, the officers did not need separate indicia of criminal activity occurring at the time of the arrest to make the arrest. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal where the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; the district court did not err by denying his motions to exclude evidence of prior drug and alcohol use; the district court did not err by excluding expert testimony and his request for a Daubert hearing where the district court determined that no hearing was necessary and the experts were qualified based on their knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education; the district court did not err by excluding text messages between defendant and the victim as hearsay; and any error in excluding specific details of the victim's misbehavior was harmless. View "United States v. Aungie" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on a charge of assaulting a dating partner by strangulation or suffocation. The district court instructed the jury on both the charged offense and a lesser-included offense of simple assault. The jury acquitted defendant of assault by strangulation, and convicted him of simple assault. Defendant appealed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that defendant waived his challenge to the district court's decision to give a lesser-included instruction on simple assault because he invited the alleged error by agreeing that simple assault was "the appropriate lesser-included offense." Even if defendant had not waived his challenge, the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction. In this case, the court applied the elements test to identify the relevant offense: a lesser crime is necessarily included in the greater if the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense. The court concluded that the elements of simple assault are a subset of the elements of assault by strangulation. View "United States v. Stricker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress in an action where defendant was convicted of robbing or attempting to rob multiple stores around the Twin Cities. Law enforcement identified defendant by searching cellular-tower records, which showed that defendant's cell phone was at or near at least four of the robberies.In this case, the affidavits for the search warrants explained why there was a fair probability that the cellular-tower records would identify the robber. Considered in their totality, the court concluded that the facts provided a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed. The court explained that the judges knew from the affidavits that the robberies were connected by a common modus operandi; that the robber likely carried a cell phone, even if he did not use it during the robberies; and that comparing the numbers from cellular-tower records could reveal his true identity. Furthermore, the search warrants were constrained both geographically and temporally. View "United States v. James" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for stealing opioids and other pain medications from 14 pain patients while she was working as a hospice nurse. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3A1.1(b)(2)(B) for an offense involving a large number of vulnerable victims. In this case, the district court emphasized defendant's "hands-on conduct" and the fact that she had a special responsibility as a nurse to give her patients the pain medication they needed. The district court recognized that although 14 may not be a large number in other circumstances, this crime exceeded the number of vulnerable victims typically found in offenses of like kind. View "United States v. Boll" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute marijuana and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer a nexus between defendant's handgun and his drug trafficking offense. The court also concluded that the district court's finding regarding the drug amount was plausible in light of the record as a whole. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in refusing to give defendant credit for acceptance of responsibility after he pleaded guilty at the eleventh-hour and decided to force the government to prove its case on the firearm charge. View "United States v. Tan Fong Vang" on Justia Law