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

A Missouri state trooper stopped the defendant for minor traffic violations, during which the defendant disclosed his status as a registered sex offender. The trooper invited the defendant into his patrol car while checking his license and registration. During this time, the trooper learned that the defendant had not registered any social media accounts as required by Missouri law. The trooper then asked for and received consent to search the defendant’s vehicle. While searching, the trooper picked up the defendant’s cell phone, which illuminated to reveal social media app icons. The trooper questioned the defendant about the phone and, after repeated requests, obtained the defendant’s verbal consent to search the phone. The search revealed images suspected to be child pornography, leading to the defendant’s arrest. After being read his Miranda rights, the defendant made further incriminating statements. A subsequent warrant-based search of the phone uncovered additional illegal material.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence from the cell phone and his statements to law enforcement, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation. The defendant waived his right to a jury trial, proceeded to a bench trial, and was convicted of receiving child pornography.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the trooper’s brief questioning and request for consent did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop. The court found that moving the cell phone during a consensual vehicle search did not constitute an unlawful search or seizure, and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the phone search. The court also determined that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes during pre-arrest questioning, so suppression of his statements was not warranted. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Puckett" on Justia Law

Nicholas Nesdahl, posing as a teenager, used social media to contact several minor girls and solicit sexually explicit images and videos. In one instance, he directed a 13-year-old girl to record herself sexually abusing her 6-year-old stepsister. The abuse was discovered by the older girl’s mother, who notified authorities. Law enforcement identified Nesdahl as the recipient and found he had received similar material from at least seven other minors across the country. Nesdahl was indicted in both the District of North Dakota and the Western District of Pennsylvania, with the latter case transferred to North Dakota. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts from the Pennsylvania indictment (involving receipt of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a minor) and seven counts from the North Dakota indictment (all for sexual exploitation of a minor).The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, which recommended the statutory maximum sentence and identified nine victims, triggering mandatory restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2). Nesdahl did not object to the restitution order. At sentencing, the court imposed 600 months’ imprisonment and ordered $3,000 in restitution for each of the nine victims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the restitution order for plain error and found that mandatory restitution under § 2259(b)(2) applies only to certain trafficking offenses, not to convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The court held that restitution was only authorized for the two victims associated with the § 2252(a)(2) conviction, not for the other seven victims. The Eighth Circuit vacated the restitution award and remanded for a new order reflecting only the two qualifying victims. The court affirmed the 600-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable and within the district court’s discretion. View "United States v. Nesdahl" on Justia Law

Jacob McWaters was stopped by law enforcement in January 2023, and they found 19,910 grams of methamphetamine in his vehicle. During a post-Miranda interview, McWaters admitted to transporting methamphetamine from Texas to Minnesota and had done so on two prior occasions. He pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa sentenced McWaters to 240 months in custody, followed by five years of supervised release. McWaters objected to the Presentence Report’s (PSR) calculation of his Guidelines range, arguing for a reduction in his offense level due to his mitigating role. The district court overruled his objection and calculated his Guidelines range at 292 to 365 months. However, the court granted a partial downward variance, resulting in a 240-month sentence.McWaters appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in not applying a role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual finding for clear error. The court noted that McWaters needed to prove his conduct involved more than one participant and that his culpability was minor compared to others. McWaters emphasized his role as a low-level courier with minimal knowledge of the drug operation but failed to provide evidence comparing his conduct to other participants. The court found no clear error in the district court’s decision and upheld the denial of the role reduction.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, maintaining McWaters’s 240-month sentence. View "United States v. McWaters" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old girl reported to her school principal that her mother’s ex-boyfriend had inappropriately touched her in a bathtub on tribal land. During a forensic interview, she described being touched on the outside of her vaginal area and feeling the man’s penis on her back. The accused denied the allegations but later admitted to being naked in the bathtub with the children, claiming he left immediately. In a subsequent law enforcement interview, he responded “mmhmm” to statements that he had touched the girl’s vagina, which an agent interpreted as acknowledgments rather than admissions. At trial, the girl testified about two incidents: one in a bathtub when she was seven, and another in a bedroom where she awoke bleeding. The government introduced a recording of the “mmhmm” responses, and the jury was instructed that silence or failure to deny an accusation could be considered an admission.A jury in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota convicted the defendant of aggravated sexual abuse of a child under 12 and abusive sexual contact of a child. The defendant moved for acquittal or a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. The district court denied acquittal but granted a new trial, citing concerns about leading questions during testimony, the prejudicial effect of the “mmhmm” responses and related jury instruction, and the mandatory minimum sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial on grounds not raised in the defendant’s Rule 33 motion, as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appellate court reversed the order granting a new trial, reinstated the convictions, and remanded the case for sentencing. View "United States v. Drum" on Justia Law

A police officer in Bismarck, North Dakota, smelled marijuana in a hotel and traced the scent to Room 118, occupied by Leonard Tate. The officer obtained a search warrant based on the smell and Tate's criminal history. The search revealed fentanyl, cash, firearm parts, and other items. Tate was charged with three drug-related crimes and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and the search exceeded its scope. The district court denied the motion, and Tate pled guilty to one count of conspiracy, preserving his right to appeal the suppression order.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota found that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the search did not exceed the warrant's scope, and the good-faith exception applied. Tate appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the warrant was not supported by probable cause and that the search exceeded its scope.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the smell of marijuana alone provided substantial support for probable cause, especially given the officer's training and experience. The court also found that the search did not exceed the warrant's scope, as the items seized were in plain view and their incriminating nature was immediately apparent. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Tate's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Tate" on Justia Law

Booker Deon McKinney pleaded guilty to possession of ammunition as an unlawful drug user, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). He was sentenced to 120 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. McKinney later moved to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss his indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied his motion.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa initially reviewed the case. McKinney was indicted in January 2023 and pleaded guilty in June 2023. In January 2024, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea and dismiss the indictment, which the district court denied. McKinney was sentenced on January 26, 2024, and subsequently appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. McKinney argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss the indictment, miscalculated his base offense level, relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence, and improperly weighed the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. The Eighth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decisions. The court held that there was no intervening change in the law that justified McKinney's belated request to withdraw his plea. The court also upheld the district court's calculation of the base offense level and its reliance on hearsay evidence, finding it sufficiently reliable. Finally, the court found McKinney's sentence substantively reasonable, noting that the district court had appropriately considered the § 3553(a) factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. McKinney" on Justia Law

Clayton Stewart was involved in a police incident where Officer Victor Garcia of the Jonesboro, Arkansas police department tased him while he was climbing a fence. Stewart fell and was paralyzed as a result. Stewart filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Garcia, Jonesboro Chief of Police Rick Elliot, and the City of Jonesboro, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, and Stewart appealed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine disputes of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. Stewart argued that Garcia lacked probable cause to arrest him, used excessive force, and was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He also claimed that Elliot was liable as Garcia’s supervisor and that the police department’s policies were unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Garcia had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Stewart for misdemeanor assault and fleeing. Regarding the excessive force claim, the court found that while tasing Stewart in an elevated position could be considered deadly force, Stewart’s right to be free from such force was not clearly established at the time of the incident, entitling Garcia to qualified immunity. On the deliberate indifference claim, the court concluded that although a reasonable jury could find Garcia was aware of Stewart’s serious medical needs, Stewart failed to show that the right was clearly established, granting Garcia qualified immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the supervisory liability claim against Elliot and the municipal liability claim against the City of Jonesboro, finding no evidence of a pattern of unconstitutional acts or inadequate policies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Stewart v. Garcia" on Justia Law

In June 2022, law enforcement officers in Sarpy County received a tip that Rolando Midder was sex trafficking a 16-year-old girl, J.C. Officers met with J.C., who showed signs of physical abuse, and took her to a hospital for a sexual assault exam. After two weeks of investigation, Midder was arrested and charged with one count of sex trafficking a minor and two counts of sexually exploiting a minor. A jury convicted him on all counts.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska admitted social media evidence and witness testimony during the trial. Midder appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting this evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. He also challenged the scope of testimony given by a nurse who performed J.C.'s sexual assault exam, but he failed to provide any argument on this issue, resulting in a waiver of appellate review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and found that the government presented sufficient evidence connecting Midder to the cellphone and social media accounts used in the crimes. The court also upheld the admission of testimony from Eran Peatrowsky under Rule 404(b), finding it relevant to proving Midder’s knowledge, intent, and motive. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Midder’s convictions for sex trafficking a minor and sexual exploitation of a minor, based on the evidence presented at trial.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings and upheld Midder’s convictions on all counts. View "United States v. Midder" on Justia Law

Evan Brown Bull was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine. The government presented evidence from thirteen witnesses and various forms of documentation, including videos and Facebook messages, detailing Brown Bull's drug dealings from 2016 to 2023. The Probation Office's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a base offense level of 32, with adjustments that increased the total offense level to 40, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Brown Bull objected to the PSR's findings and requested a downward variance to 180 months.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota overruled Brown Bull's objections and applied three sentencing enhancements: a two-level increase for obstruction of justice, a four-level increase for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants, and a two-level increase for committing the offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood. The court ultimately sentenced Brown Bull to 400 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's application of the sentencing enhancements. The court held that Brown Bull's pretrial jail messages and Facebook post constituted obstruction of justice, that he was an organizer or leader of the drug conspiracy, and that his criminal conduct was part of his livelihood. The court concluded that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence and upheld the 400-month sentence. View "United States v. Bull" on Justia Law

Shawn Russell Sorensen was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment based on prior state convictions for drug offenses. He filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not contesting the qualification of his prior convictions as "felony drug offenses" under 21 U.S.C. § 841’s sentencing enhancement scheme.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed Sorensen's motion. The court found that his counsel's performance was not deficient, as the argument regarding the categorical approach to his prior convictions was considered novel at the time of sentencing. Sorensen appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that even if counsel's performance was deficient, Sorensen failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court applied the categorical and modified categorical approaches to determine that Sorensen's prior convictions under Arizona and South Dakota statutes qualified as felony drug offenses. The Arizona statute was found to be divisible, and Sorensen's conviction for possession of methamphetamine matched the federal definition of a felony drug offense. Similarly, the South Dakota statute was also deemed divisible, and Sorensen's conviction for possession of methamphetamine under this statute qualified as a felony drug offense. Therefore, Sorensen's sentence was upheld, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Sorensen v. United States" on Justia Law