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

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Pierre, South Dakota, and one of its police officers, Matthew Shaver, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal district court, alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that defendant was collaterally estopped from relitigating his claim because he had already litigated the Fourth Amendment issue before the South Dakota trial court in the criminal proceedings against him. In this case, during criminal proceedings in a South Dakota trial court, defendant moved to suppress certain evidence as being obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. After the trial court denied defendant's motion, he then pleaded nolo contendere and did not appeal the suppression ruling. Plaintiff later filed his section 1983 action. Therefore, the court concluded that there was a final judgment on the merits for the purpose of collateral estoppel. View "Sparks v. Shaver" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of possessing child pornography. In this case, after a police officer downloaded part of a computer file containing child pornography on a peer-to-peer network from an IP address connected to defendant, investigators searched his home and digital devices and uncovered additional illicit files.The court has held numerous times that a defendant has no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in files he shares over a peer-to-peer network, including those shared anonymously with law enforcement officers. The court also concluded that there was no error in denying defendant's request for independent testing of the software law enforcement used to identify him as possessing and sharing child pornography. The court explained that the evidence in the record, which the magistrate judge expressly found credible, is that the programs operated reliably and did not access private areas of defendant's computer. Furthermore, defendant has not offered any reason to conclude otherwise. View "United States v. Shipton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's second revocation of supervised release and revocation sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. Defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements before a grand jury under oath and was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant violated his first term of supervised release by failing to participate in substance abuse testing and violated his second term of supervised release by assaulting his ex-girlfriend. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in assessing the evidence and did not abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke supervised release. Furthermore, defendant's appeal of the sentence as substantively unreasonable is moot where he has already finished serving the term of imprisonment imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Daye" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's 72 month sentence for knowingly possessing a stolen firearm and remanded for resentencing before a different district court judge. In this case, defendant and the Government stipulated to a Sentencing Guidelines base offense level of 12. However, the Government later endorsed the PSR's contrary base offense level calculation of 20. The district court adopted the PSR's calculation.The court concluded that if the government breached the plea agreement in the case, a defendant may proceed with an appeal despite an appellate waiver; defendant preserved the issue for appeal; and the government breached the plea agreement. Even assuming a cure is possible, other circuits require that the government offer an unequivocal retraction of its erroneous position to sufficiently cure a breach. The court explained that the Government's conduct is a far cry from an unequivocal retraction. In this case, the Government's half-hearted and begrudging statement that the district court should follow the agreement was not enough—especially taking a holistic view of the Government's plea-related conduct. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a statutory maximum of 24 months' imprisonment based on defendant's revocation of his supervised release. After defendant completed his initial term of imprisonment, he has struggled to comply with the conditions of his supervised release because of his alcohol addiction.The court concluded that the district court's revocation sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly consulted the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and considered defendant's struggle with alcohol addiction in selecting the sentence imposed. In this case, the district court expressed particular concern about the physical danger Flying Horse had posed to others, including law enforcement officers, while intoxicated. View "United States v. Flying Horse" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a 7 month sentence and a 60 month term of supervised release after defendant's second revocation of supervised release. In this case, defendant pleaded guilty to two felonies and violated the conditions of his release several times.The court concluded that the 60 month term of supervised release was substantively reasonable where the district court was authorized to impose as much as 86 months of supervised release; it had wide latitude to weigh the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; and thus was entitled to focus in particular on the offense of conviction, the problems on supervised release, and the nature of the problems while on supervised release. Furthermore, there were reasonable considerations in light of defendant's consistent resistance to complying with the conditions of his release and the multiple revocations of his release. View "United States v. Barber" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and affirmed the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. In this case, there was plenty of evidence to show a conspiracy and a reasonable jury could find a methamphetamine distribution model agreed to by at least one of the participants. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order determining that petitioner was removable because his prior conviction for enticing a minor under Iowa law was a "crime of child abuse." Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that the Board's decision cannot be upheld on the rationale advanced by the government because it conflates two separate elements in the Iowa statute. Looking only at the plain text of the Iowa statute, the court cannot exclude the possibility that an offender could be prosecuted for enticing a minor with intent to commit disorderly conduct or harassment upon a minor. Furthermore, the Board's decision is not clear about how it understood the "realistic probability" requirement. Accordingly, the court vacated the Board's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pah Peh v. Garland" on Justia Law

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