United States v. Walker, No. 15-2921 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C 924(e). The court concluded that the officer's observation - that the crack in the car's windshield obstructed the driver's view - provided a reasonable basis for the officer's belief that defendant was violating Minn. Stat. 169.71(a)(1) and thus justifying a traffic stop; the smell of unburned marijuana provided a basis to further detain defendant that was independent of the cracked windshield and it also provided probable cause to search the car; and therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. The court also concluded that there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(A), nor defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right; the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine seeking to preclude defendant from introducing at trial evidence regarding an internal affairs investigation of the officer; and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because the court could not conclude that defendant's second-degree burglary conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate offense. The court affirmed in all other respects.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in crediting the arresting officer's testimony that he believed the crack in the windshield in defendant' vehicle obstructed his vision and was a violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 169.71(a)(1)thereby justifying a traffic stop; the strong odor of marijuana the officer smelled when the car was stopped provided a basis to detain defendant independent of the cracked windshield and provided probable cause to search the car; Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment speedy trial right claims rejected; the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine to preclude questioning of the arresting officer regarding an unrelated internal affairs investigation; no error in rejecting defendant's proposed instructions on constructive possession and knowledge; with respect to defendant's contention that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career criminal, the court could not determine on the basis of this record whether defendant's prior Minnesota second-degree burglary conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate offense, and his sentence is vacated; the matter is remanded for further sentencing proceedings; the district court is not limited with respect to the evidence it may consider on remand.
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.