USA v. William Andrews, Jr., No. 05-4065 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. District court's finding that the government failed in its burden to prove that there was an objective basis for the stop in this case was not clearly erroneous, and its order suppressing evidence is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-4065 ___________ United States of America, Appellant, v. William Andrews, Jr., Appellee. * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. [PUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: August 31, 2006 Filed: September 22, 2006 ___________ Before ARNOLD and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1 District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. We remanded this case to the district court2 for clarification of its factual findings in support of its determination that William Andrews's motion to suppress should be granted. The district court has now certified further findings to us; we interpret them as saying that Deputy Brown's testimony that Mr. Andrews was 1 The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. 2 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. following too close was not credible and that there was therefore no probable cause for stopping his vehicle. We take this occasion to observe that the fourth amendment is not violated if an objectively good reason for a traffic stop exists, whatever the actual subjective motive of the officer making the stop may have been. We believe that the district court found that the government failed in its burden to prove that there was an objective basis for the stop in this case, a finding that we conclude was not clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
