United States v. Rush, No. 10-3004 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of bank robbery and was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment. Defendant raised several issues on appeal. The court held that the deputy's questioning of defendant was consensual and therefore, did not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny; the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant and his companion had been involved in a bank robbery and therefore, the officer did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by seizing him and placing him in the back of his cruiser; and defendant's remaining evidentiary claims were rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and denied his pending motion to strike as moot.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Under the facts presented, the officer's act of questioning defendant was a consensual encounter; officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant and his companion had been involved in a bank robbery, and he could detain defendant and place him in the back of the police cruiser without violating defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; evidentiary challenge rejected; evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for bank robbery.
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.