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

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of cyberstalking, and two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's guilty plea for attempted sexual exploitation. In this case, the government explained that defendant had captured several videos of the victim with hidden cameras, and defendant agreed with the facts surrounding all three of his charges. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that his 30-month sentence for cyberstalking should run consecutive to his 210-month sentence for attempted sexual exploitation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McGarvey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. The court concluded that the district court did not err by determining that the Act did not change defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range given his status as a career offender. In this case, the district court explained that it would not exercise its substantial discretion to reduce defendant's sentence because the Act did not affect defendant's Guidelines range—which ultimately depended on the application of USSG 4B1.1(c)(3) to his firearms count. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court incorrectly treated him as a career offender because one of his underlying Arkansas convictions is not a crime of violence. The court explained that, even assuming defendant is correct in his assertions about Arkansas law, the problem with his argument is his unspoken premise that, in First Step Act resentencing, a district court is required to reassess earlier sentencing decisions unaffected by the Act. View "United States v. Burnell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in a warrantless search of his vehicle and subsequent search of his apartment. In this case, defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i).The court concluded that the officers indisputably had probable cause to search defendant's vehicle, and an easily repairable flat tire did not cause the vehicle to lose its inherent mobility. Therefore, the automobile exception applied and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence resulting from the vehicle search. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Franks hearing where the court agreed with the district court that defendant's assertions failed to show that an investigator deliberately or recklessly omitted various details from his affidavit. Even if defendant had made a sufficient showing of deliberate or reckless omissions, the affidavit contained other information that was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court imposed an upward variance in light of the serious nature of the underlying events. In this case, the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Short" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of child pornography. In this case, defendant was convicted of five counts related to child pornography.The court concluded that, based on the facts, there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in defendant's vehicle and the agents had probable cause to search the vehicle. Because the automobile exception allowed the officers to search defendant's van and to seize any materials that they had probable cause to believe were contraband, seizing defendant's devices from his van was constitutional. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for attempted distribution of child pornography. View "United States v. Keck" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action brought by plaintiffs, on behalf of their son, Tanner, who was arrested when he was 15 years old on charges that were later dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Iowa state law stemming from the officers' arrest of Tanner after he was accused of sexual assault. The court concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Tanner and were therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim. The court explained that, when the officers arrested Tanner, they had probable cause to believe that he had committed the crime of third-degree sexual abuse under Iowa law.The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims, concluding that nothing in the officers' statements or actions indicates that they acted recklessly as they investigated the allegations against Tanner. Finally, because the officers had probable cause for the arrest, the court concluded that plaintiffs' state law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution fail and defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the claims. View "Walz v. Randall" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release and 24-month sentence. The court concluded that defendant has not shown that the district court clearly erred in its finding that he, more likely than not, committed a new state crime by committing a willful injury in violation of Iowa Code Sec. 708.4(1)-(2). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's supervised release. The court also concluded that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered defendant's strong work ethic and consistent employment, but also considered his repeated supervised-release violations and his conduct in the alley fight. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing other sentencing factors more heavily. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of BNSF in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) under Nebraska law. The court concluded that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) divested the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's constructive discharge claim and thus the claim was properly dismissed.However, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the IIED claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because that claim can be resolved interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Nevertheless, the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint failed to state a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Nebraska law no matter what the collective bargaining agreement says. In this case, plaintiff alleged that BNSF or its employees disciplined and fired him without cause and berated him with expletive laced language and threats of physical violence. The court explained that it is unnecessary to interpret the collective bargaining agreement to conclude that these allegations do not support a reasonable inference of liability. Rather, plaintiff's allegations of discipline and termination without cause are insufficient to generate a reasonable inference of liability because discipline and termination without cause are not so outrageous that they give rise to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Nebraska law. View "Richardson v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment revoking defendant's supervised release after defendant failed to comply with sex offender treatment, he had unapproved contact with minors, possessed an internet capable device, used the internet to view child pornography, and committed a new law violation for possessing child pornography.The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when it considered evidence derived from the polygraph answers even though his special condition stated that the results would not be used for the purpose of revoking supervised release. Rather, the court concluded that there is no evidence that the district court used any result of a polygraph examination. In this case, the district court only considered defendant's admissions to his probation officer about his contact with the minor and the grandmother's corroborating statements. View "United States v. Trimble" on Justia Law

After Jerome Goode led police on a twenty-five-mile car chase, the chase ended in his death and the deaths of passengers Lavoy Steed and Leon Haywood. Steed's next friend filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Missouri State Troopers Fowler and Ashby, alleging that the traffic stop that precipitated the chase and an attempt to halt Goode's vehicle with spike strips were unconstitutional seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the troopers, concluding that Trooper Fowler had probable cause to stop the vehicle where dashcam footage shows the vehicle going close to ninety miles per hour. Even assuming that the trooper misinterpreted the speed reading, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because he had at least arguable probable cause to believe the vehicle was speeding. The court also concluded that the record clearly establishes that the troopers did not apply physical force by trying to use the spike strips, and thus there was no seizure. View "Steed v. Missouri State Highway Patrol" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the officers' motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, who had been arrested at a protest, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights and conspiracy to violate his rights, and under Missouri state law. Plaintiff and his wife were documentary filmmakers who were covering protests in downtown St. Louis, Missouri, following Officer Jason Stockley's acquittal of charges arising from the death of Anthony Lamar Smith.The court concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury could conclude that Officer Biggins used excessive force during plaintiff's arrest, that he acted with an "actual intent to cause injury" to plaintiff, and that his use of excessive force was done in retaliation for plaintiff's First Amendment activity. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity to Officer Biggins on plaintiff's First and Fourth Amendment claims, nor did the district court err in denying summary judgment based on official immunity to Officer Biggins on plaintiff's state law assault and battery claim. The court declined to consider the officers' argument concerning application of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine because it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "Burbridge v. Biggins" on Justia Law