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 by a warrant using the Network Investigative Technique (NIT). The court held that defendant's challenge to the NIT warrant was preempted by the court's decision in United States v. Horton, 863 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2017), where the NIT warrant was upheld under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to compel disclosure of the complete source code for all software used to identify him. View "United States v. Jean" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' request to reconsider its previous denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In this case, an inmate at the ADC filed suit against defendants, alleging deliberate indifference to his painful dental condition. Because defendants did not timely appeal the district court's denial of summary judgment, the court only had jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying reconsideration under Rule 60(b). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reconsideration under Rule 60(b) where, unlike the defendants in Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2016), the defendants here have not shown that they tried to get plaintiff treatment after they were alerted to his condition. The court held that defendants were constitutionally obligated to see that the inmates in their custody who need dental care receive it and were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious dental condition. View "Williams v. York" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop and statements made to officers after his arrest, holding that law enforcement officers did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and there was no basis to exclude the disputed evidence. In this case, the officers had probable cause to believe defendant committed a drug trafficking offense and that evidence of the offense was contained in his vehicle. Furthermore, the drug dog's failure to alert on the car was relevant to the probable cause determination, but was not determinative. The court reasoned that police may consider other, pre-existing information in making the objective determination as to whether there was a fair probability that evidence of the crime was in the vehicle. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for receipt of child pornography after the district court vacated his conviction for the lesser-included possession of child pornography count. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to produce PSRs for all cases in the district involving possession or receipt of child pornography; by vacating the possession count where the greater weight of authority in situations with a greater offense and a lesser-included offense was to vacate the lesser-included offense; by disregarding the child pornography guidelines on policy grounds; and by sentencing defendant to 74 months in prison where it provided adequate explanation for its decision and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner after he was convicted of raping an adult woman with the mental capacity of a young child and sentenced to seventy years in prison as a habitual offender. The court held that, under Arkansas law, parole-eligibility determinations by the Department of Corrections did not constitute a modification of a prison sentence. Therefore, trial counsel's deficient performance in this case did not deprive petitioner of a due process claim that Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609(b) should not apply when the jury, court, and defendant were unaware of the Act and did not intend for the Act to apply to the judgment. Although the state court improperly instructed the jury that petitioner would be eligible for parole after serving 70% of his sentence if sentenced to a term of years, petitioner was not prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington when his trial counsel failed to correct the error. View "Stewart v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner after he was convicted of raping an adult woman with the mental capacity of a young child and sentenced to seventy years in prison as a habitual offender. The court held that, under Arkansas law, parole-eligibility determinations by the Department of Corrections did not constitute a modification of a prison sentence. Therefore, trial counsel's deficient performance in this case did not deprive petitioner of a due process claim that Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609(b) should not apply when the jury, court, and defendant were unaware of the Act and did not intend for the Act to apply to the judgment. Although the state court improperly instructed the jury that petitioner would be eligible for parole after serving 70% of his sentence if sentenced to a term of years, petitioner was not prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington when his trial counsel failed to correct the error. View "Stewart v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Perez-Trevino, Flores, and Castellanos' convictions for crimes related to their involvement in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the police department's policy contained sufficiently standardized police procedures for an officer to inventory the contents of a vehicle and its compartments; at the time he opened the cooler, the officer had sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and its contents under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement; and thus the district court properly denied Perez-Trevino's motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine found in the cooler. In regard to Castellanos' wiretap argument, the court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the wiretap application provided sufficient information to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal activity would be found, as well as the need to use a wiretap. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Perez-Trevino of conspiracy; the district court did not err in denying Perez-Trevino's proposed jury instruction; the evidentiary challenges were rejected; Flores' sentence was correctly calculated and the sentence was substantively reasonable; Castellano was not entitled to a minor role reduction; and the evidence supported the drug quantity calculation for Castellano and her sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Perez-Trevino" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Perez-Trevino, Flores, and Castellanos' convictions for crimes related to their involvement in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the police department's policy contained sufficiently standardized police procedures for an officer to inventory the contents of a vehicle and its compartments; at the time he opened the cooler, the officer had sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle and its contents under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement; and thus the district court properly denied Perez-Trevino's motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine found in the cooler. In regard to Castellanos' wiretap argument, the court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the wiretap application provided sufficient information to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal activity would be found, as well as the need to use a wiretap. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Perez-Trevino of conspiracy; the district court did not err in denying Perez-Trevino's proposed jury instruction; the evidentiary challenges were rejected; Flores' sentence was correctly calculated and the sentence was substantively reasonable; Castellano was not entitled to a minor role reduction; and the evidence supported the drug quantity calculation for Castellano and her sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Perez-Trevino" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and order of removal. The court held that petitioner's prior violations of two municipal ordinances were misdemeanors that disqualified him from TPS status under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A). The court also held that petitioner suffered no due process prejudice. View "Rubio v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's reduced 262 month sentence on remand after he was convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reopening the sentencing record to permit the government to supplement the record with state court judicial records which were relevant to the force clause issue; the district court did not err in determining defendant's convictions for Arkansas third degree domestic battery and first degree battery were violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act's force clause; and the district court did not plainly err by applying a sentencing enhancement for using or possessing an unlawfully possessed weapon in connection with a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.4(b)(3)(A). View "United States v. Eason" on Justia Law