Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Porter received a 104-month prison sentence for illegally possessing a firearm. Shortly before he was scheduled for supervised release, the probation office realized that he did not have a release plan and asked the district court to order Porter to spend 120 days at a residential reentry center, to find work and a place to live. The district court approved the request, but Porter checked out to go to work one day and never returned, violating both his conditions of supervised release and the reentry center’s rules. Porter remained at large until he was captured several weeks later. The district court imposed a 14-month prison sentence for violating the conditions of supervised release. The government filed a separate charge for escaping from custody, 18 U.S.C. 751(a). Porter argued that he was not in the reentry center “by virtue of” a “conviction,” as the statute requires, but rather because he did not have a place to live.The Eighth Circuit affirmed his conviction and concurrent 12-month sentence. Porter was in “custody” at the reentry center and his “unauthorized departure” was an “escape.” A conviction must only be a cause of the custody or confinement, whether “immediate” or not. Porter never would have been at a reentry center had he not first been convicted of a crime. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court imposed an illegal sentence because he overserved the maximum time permitted by statute for his felon-in-possession charge (10 years). Rather, the court concluded that defendant's sentence does not violate the maximum term set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3). The court explained that the maximum term of imprisonment is governed by the law of the offense. The court also concluded that the revocation of defendant's supervised release did not violate his Constitutional right to a jury trial. Finally, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court carefully considered and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Childs" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant Campbell-Martin and Leiva's motion to suppress. Defendants conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Considering all the relevant circumstances, the court concluded that the officer's initial encounter with Campbell-Martin and Leiva was not a Fourth Amendment seizure because it was a consensual encounter. Furthermore, even if it became nonconsensual, the officer had reasonable suspicion to question them and ask for identification. In this case, the officer's conduct would not have communicated to a reasonable person that he could not leave. Nor does requesting identification or asking questions effect a seizure as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.The court also concluded that the search of the car and the backpack without a warrant was a valid inventory search. The court rejected Campbell-Martin's claims that the district court erred in denying her request for a two-level reduction for a minor role in the offense under USSG 3B1.2(b), concluding that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the district court's decision. Because Leiva stipulated in his plea agreement that he knowingly and intentionally possessed the methamphetamine and was within 1,000 feet of a school, the district court properly applied the two-level enhancement under USSG 2D1.2(a)(1). Finally, the district court did not err in determining that Leiva's 2018 drug-possession offense was not relevant conduct to the instant offense and could be assessed three-criminal history points. Therefore, the court affirmed defendants' sentences. View "United States v. Campbell-Martin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 300-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 100 grams of a mixture or substance containing heroin. The court concluded that the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous facts in making its sentencing decision and, even assuming the district court did procedurally err, any such error was harmless. In this case, the government explained that the district court found a 300-month sentence appropriate not because it believed fentanyl was present but because heroin distributed by defendant led to someone's death and defendant has an extensive criminal history, with approximately 1 conviction per year since he turned 21 years old. Furthermore, the district court court engaged in a thoughtful and thorough analysis of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Wise" on Justia Law

After panel rehearing, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motions to suppress and his objection to application of the career criminal enhancement in USSG 4B1.1(a). Defendant robbed a Sprint Wireless Express store at gunpoint, and then left with a GPS tracker.The court concluded that the police had at least reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle where, considering the tight window of opportunity officers have to locate a fleeing suspect, it was reasonable for police to rely on third-party GPS data. Furthermore, other factors also supported the officers' suspicion, such as the store employee's description of the vehicle and the unusual behavior of the vehicle's occupants. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances gave police at least reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and thus stopping the vehicle to investigate that suspicion comported with the Fourth Amendment. The court also concluded that any error in denying as moot defendant's objection to evidence of a show-up was harmless after the government stated it did not intend to use the evidence at trial. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing the career offender enhancement where Illinois armed robbery qualifies as generic robbery under the enumerated offense clause of section 4B1.2(a)(2). View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging the South Dakota State Penitentiary's pornography policy under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff named as defendants four South Dakota corrections officials in their official capacities. The district court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions for summary judgment.In regard to plaintiff's as-applied challenges, the Eighth Circuit applied the Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), factors and concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for plaintiff on his claim that the policy is unconstitutional as applied to two erotic novels because defendants were within their discretion to censor these books. However, the district court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff on his claim that the policy is unconstitutional as applied to the art book and nine pictures of Renaissance artwork.In regard to plaintiff's facial challenges, the court dismissed as moot plaintiff's claim that the prohibition on nudity is overbroad, but plaintiff's claim that the prohibition on sexually explicit content is overbroad remains a live case or controversy based on the court's reversal of the district court's ruling on his as-applied challenges regarding the erotic novels. The court read the policy in light of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and concluded that plaintiff failed to show that the policy's prohibition on sexually explicit content is "substantially overbroad." The court concluded that although plaintiff's resolution of plaintiff's as-applied challenges does not moot his claim that the policy's prohibition on sexually explicit content is overbroad, this claim fails on the merits. Finally, the court dismissed as moot plaintiff's request for coercive sanctions, denied his request for compensatory sanctions, and denied plaintiff's request for sanctions for defendants' alleged violations of the district court's orders. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sisney v. Kaemingk" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In this case, a police officer stopped the vehicle defendant was driving for having an unsafe windshield and, during the scope of the traffic stop, the officer asked defendant to get out of the vehicle, conducted a pat down search, and discovered a handgun.The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding, in the absence of disputed facts, to rule on the motion to suppress without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The court also concluded that a reasonable officer could have believed on initial observation that the cracked windshield constituted a safety defect and the officer's mistake of fact was an objectively reasonable one. Therefore, defendant was not unreasonably seized when the officer conducted the traffic stop. Furthermore, the officer did not unlawfully expand the scope or extend the stop when he asked for identification from the occupants of the vehicle. View "United States v. Foster" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act of 2018, concluding that the COVID-19 pandemic is not an extraordinary and compelling circumstance to warrant a sentence reduction in this case. The court explained that, although certainly relevant, the threat of contracting COVID-19 in the prison environment, still real at this time, is not by itself sufficient reason to modify a lawfully imposed prison sentence. Here, the district court properly looked to USSG 1B1.13 and its commentary as relevant but not binding in determining that defendant's health conditions at the time he requested a 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) sentence reduction were not extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduction. Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court did not err in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors in declining to grant compassionate release. View "United States v. Marcussen" on Justia Law

On a well-lit summer evening in a Des Moines neighborhood with community-reported drug crimes, police officers Minnehan and Steinkamp lawfully stopped Haynes for suspected (mistaken) involvement in a drug deal. The exceedingly polite and cooperative exchange between the three did not make either officer view Haynes as a safety risk. Haynes could not find his driver’s license but shared three separate cards bearing his name. Steinkamp then handcuffed him. While the polite interaction continued, the cuffs stayed on. They also stayed on after a clean frisk and a consensual pocket search. They stayed on after the officers declined Haynes’s invitation to search another pocket and Haynes’s car. The officers declined another squad car’s offer to help.The district court rejected, on summary judgment, Haynes’s Fourth Amendment claims. 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Handcuffs constitute “greater than a de minimus intrusion,” their use requires the officer to demonstrate that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Here, the officers failed to point to specific facts supporting an objective safety concern during the encounter. Minnehan and Steinkamp had fair notice that they could not handcuff Haynes without an objective safety concern. View "Haynes v. Minnehan" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by a pretrial detainee against prison officials, alleging violation of his constitutional rights when he was denied visitation with his children due to a blanket policy of prohibiting detainees from visitations by minor children. The court determined that its case law up to now has not necessarily made clear that the prison officials violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by enforcing the blanket prohibition on visitation with minor children, and thus qualified immunity was appropriate to protect defendants from liability.However, the court noted that the time is ripe to clearly establish that such behavior may amount to a constitutional violation in the future. The court joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that prison officials who permanently or arbitrarily deny an inmate visits with family members in disregard of the factors described in Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003), have acted in violation of the Constitution. View "Manning v. Ryan" on Justia Law