United States v. Shackleford, No. 15-2603 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant conditionally plead guilty to disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm, which was seized during a warrantless search of his vehicle. The court concluded that the district court properly denied the motion because the search was constitutionally proper under the automobile exception. In this case, information that defendant might be armed was sufficiently corroborated and what the officers observed provided a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the vehicle. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to make an immediate warrantless search under the well-established automobile exception. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Arnold and Benton, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. Officers had sufficient information to make an investigative stop of defendant's vehicle; the officers also had sufficient corroborated information to believe that defendant was armed and that his weapon or other evidence of a crime would be found in his vehicle; accordingly, they had probably cause to make an immediate warrantless search under the well-established automobile exception.
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.