United States v. Bearden, No. 14-1659 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePolk County, Arkansas, Sheriff’s Officers were attempting to locate a rural address during unrelated investigation and decided to contact neighbors for assistance. The officers but did not enter property later identified as Bearden’s because of a closed driveway gate. They drove down another driveway through a wooded area. Speaking to the owner, White, they noticed a shop building and smelled a strong odor of green marijuana. Leaving, the officers noticed surveillance cameras. They returned to White’s property later that day to investigate the “overwhelming” smell. They encountered Bearden on the property. A search of Bearden’s property revealed over 800 marijuana plants in the shed. On White’s property, the officers found hundreds of marijuana plants in the shop building. The trial court suppressed statements Bearden made before he was Mirandized but found that White’s driveway gate was open both times the officers arrived. Bearden entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture 1,000 or more marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The Eighth Circuit upheld denial of the motion to suppress and Bearden’s sentence of 180 months, rejecting arguments that burglary and escape should not count as “crimes of violence.”
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant lacked standing to challenge police officers' entry onto another individual's property and the resulting seizure of evidence from that property; officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity and his detention was justified; defendant consented to a search of his home; the district court did not err in classifying defendant as a career offender under Guidelines Sec. 4B1.1 as his Missouri conviction for second-degree burglary qualified as crime of violence.
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.