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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through the government's interception of his wire and electronic communications. The court concluded that, even if the court orders authorizing the interceptions were insufficient, suppression of evidence is not warranted, because investigators reasonably relied in good faith on the court orders. The court explained that, given the state of the law in 2014, and even today in light of United States v. Brunson, 968 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2020), it was objectively reasonable for investigators to rely on the court orders at issue to intercept defendant's communications. View "United States v. Friend" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he entered a conditional plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. The court concluded that the trooper's determination that the vehicle was following too closely in violation of the relevant statute was objectively reasonable. In the alternative, the district court did not clearly err in finding that nothing prevented the driver from slowing down sooner and maintaining a reasonable and prudent distance behind the pickup.The court also concluded that the stop was not improperly prolonged once the trooper indicated he did not intend to issue a ticket, because the trooper was clearly conducting routine traffic violation-related tasks. In this case, the trooper asked the two men questions related to their destination, route, and purpose and questions were posed while awaiting dispatch's response to his criminal histories check. Furthermore, the driver of the car consented to a search of the rental vehicle, and defendant, a passenger, posed no objection when informed of the impending search and stood by quietly as it took place. View "United States v. Cox" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a deputy sheriff, alleging an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and state-law torts of battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's action arose from an incident where he was asked to leave an automobile auction because the deputy sheriff believed that he was trespassing in a restricted area. When the deputy grabbed plaintiff's arm to escort him out of the building, plaintiff shoved the deputy. The deputy eventually deployed pepper spray against a defiant plaintiff. Plaintiff then seized the pepper spray cannister from the deputy and a further altercation ensued.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the deputy based on qualified immunity, concluding that, even if the deputy was mistaken about trespassing, plaintiff's physical resistance gave the deputy probable cause to believe that plaintiff committed another offense by unlawfully resisting arrest or detention. The court explained that plaintiff's use of force gave the deputy reasonable grounds to believe that additional force was justified to remove plaintiff from the premises. The court also concluded that, under these circumstances, a reasonable officer could have believed that it was reasonable to strike the resisting plaintiff in the head and take him to the ground for handcuffing. Furthermore, plaintiff cites no authority in comparable circumstances that clearly establishes a right to be free from the deputy's use of force. Therefore, the deputy is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court properly applied official immunity to dismiss the state-law claims. View "Jacobsen v. Klinefelter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly possessing with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of a mixture or substance containing crack cocaine. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. In this case, the district court explained that defendant's offense conduct was very serious where his conviction involved possessing 116 grams of cocaine base while in a car with an eleven-year-old child. Furthermore, the district court relied on defendant's extensive criminal history, and noted that while imprisoned, defendant twice fought with other inmates. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying Sundance's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed suit against Sundance for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that Sundance failed to pay her, and other similarly situated employees, for overtime. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining Sundance waived its right to arbitrate because Sundance's conduct, even if inconsistent with its right to arbitration, did not materially prejudice plaintiff.In this case, Sundance does not dispute its knowledge of an existing right to arbitration because the employment agreement included the arbitration clause; Sundance acted inconsistently with its right to arbitration where it substantially invoked the litigation machinery primarily by waiting eight months to assert its right to arbitrate this dispute, and failed to mention the arbitration clause in its answer or motion to dismiss; but plaintiff was not prejudiced by Sundance's litigation strategy where discovery was not conducted and the record lacks any evidence that plaintiff would have to duplicate her efforts during arbitration. View "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc." on Justia Law

Tofurky and the Institute filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of Missouri Revised Statutes 265.494(7), which criminalizes "misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry."The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the statute. After determining that Tofurky and the Institution have standing to bring this pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge, the court concluded that Tofurky and the Institution were unlikely to prevail on the merits. The court explained that Tofurky and the Institution's intended speech was not likely to be seen as "misrepresenting a product as meat" and thus did not fall within the scope of the statute. Therefore, the district court did not apply the wrong legal standard. Furthermore, the district court acted within its discretion in reading the statute as not prohibiting their commercial speech. The court similarly concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Tofurkey and the Institution failed to show irreparable harm. The court declined to reach the remaining Dataphase factors for a preliminary injunction. View "Turtle Island Foods, SPC v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's request for asylum. Petitioner feared religious persecution by gangs if she returned to her home country of El Salvador. Because petitioner has not demonstrated past persecution, and the gangs she fears are not government or government sponsored, the court explained that she bears the burden to show that relocation would not be reasonable. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that petitioner could relocate to another part of El Salvador if forced to return. In this case, petitioner worked for months in San Salvador without trouble from gangs. View "Guatemala-Pineda v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to HHW and DKH in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging professional malpractice and negligence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in ruling that the "Q" deduction did not apply to the estate return in January 2013, and DKH was not professionally negligent in failing to claim the deduction. Furthermore, the district court did not err in ruling that a certified public accountant was not negligent in failing to wait to file the return until the amendment was enacted.The court also concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's legal malpractice claim; the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte extend discovery deadlines to allow plaintiff to submit another expert affidavit; and the district court properly granted summary judgment on the aiding and abetting claim, as well as the RICO claim. Finally, the district court did not err in ruling that questions -- regarding whether an individual, who was not a party in this case, breached a fiduciary duty and whether the district court should declare specific rental rates -- were not at issue and denying summary judgment. View "Schreier v. Drealan Kvilhaug Hoefker & Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of involuntary manslaughter stemming from a drunk-driving accident that resulted in the death of one of his passengers. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and thus the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal.The court also concluded that defendant's 60 month sentence was procedurally reasonable where the sentencing transcript makes clear that the district court considered each of defendant's arguments, including that for leniency, but decided to depart upwards based on his underrepresented criminal history of multiple tribal convictions. Furthermore, defendant's contention that the district court failed to adequately explain the rationale for his sentence is simply without merit. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of commercial sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a) and conspiring to commit that offense in violation of section1594(c). In this case, defendant paid $60 dollars to a codefendant to have sex with a fifteen-year-old.The court agreed with the district court that section 1591(c) is not unconstitutionally vague "because 'reasonable opportunity to observe' would 'provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited,' is subject to common understanding, and is typical of standards that juries are asked to consider. In this case, considering that defendant had multiple encounters with the minor, his comments to the child and law enforcement about her age, and the nude photos of the minor that he later deleted because they could be child pornography, the court explained that defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor, he engaged in conduct that is clearly proscribed, and he cannot complain of the vagueness of the law. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the interstate commerce element of these sex trafficking offenses, and the evidence was sufficient to prove that his conduct affected interstate commerce, and the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Koech" on Justia Law