United States v. Williams, No. 14-3532 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseSt. Louis Metropolitan Police Officer Hendricks was driving when her patrol car’s license plate recognition system alerted, indicating that a man named Hicks was associated with a nearby car, was wanted for first-degree domestic assault, and could be armed and dangerous. The alert did not explain how or when Hicks was associated with the car. After pulling the car over, Hendricks asked the driver for his license, which identified him as Hicks. A second officer, Christensen, arrived, and asked the passenger, Williams, to step out and present identification. According to Christensen, Williams patted his waistband twice while getting out of the car, with his hands shaking uncontrollably as he retrieved his identification. Christensen handcuffed Williams, conducted a pat-down search, felt what he recognized to be a firearm, removed a handgun from Williams’s waistband, then found a bag containing “a dark rock-like substance” in Williams’s pocket--later identified as heroin. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Williams’ conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922, upholding denial of a motion to suppress and of motions in limine that sought to exclude his 2002 conviction for possessing a firearm as a felon and a 1995 conviction for unlawful possession of a concealable firearm and unlawful use of a firearm.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Beam and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Police officer had reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop in question based on a automated systems report from another police department that a person wanted for assault was associated with the vehicle; no error in admitting evidence, under Rule 404(b), that defendant had twice been convicted of illegal firearm possession; the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by prohibiting his attorney from cross-examining two police officers about their alleged motivation to falsely testify that defendant possessed a firearm without first laying an evidentiary foundation for his claim the officers planted the gun and perjured themselves; no error in admitting heroin seized during the arrest as it provided motive and context for the possession of the firearm. Judge Beam, concurring in the judgment.
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.