United States v. Long, No. 14-3599 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseLong, a member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, operated the “OC Store,” a novelty store, on the reservation. The store had few exterior windows. BIA Officer Spargur encountered juveniles, carrying fireworks. One juvenile stated that he just bought them at the OC Store. Spargur went to the Store, was unsure whether it was closed, but concluded the store was open because of lights, music, unlocked doors, and the juveniles’ report that they had “just” purchased fireworks. Spargur entered through two unlocked doors, stopped at a third door, and “knock[ed] and announce[d] police.” Receiving no response, Spargur opened the main door, and, seeing Long’s son, entered the store. Another of Long’s sons acknowledged the juveniles had been in the store. Spargur noticed a small package on one of the concession tables that, based on his experience and training, he “recognized . . . as a package normally holding synthetic marijuana.” Once Long emerged, Spargur reminded him not to sell fireworks after Independence Day, left the store, and prepared an affidavit for a search warrant. A judge, 60 miles away, approved the warrant by telephone. Spargur and others searched the store, seizing 80 grams of synthetic marijuana. Long conditionally pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss, finding that the officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Bright and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Under the circumstances presented, the court cannot say the district court clearly erred in finding that defendant had failed to prove his convenience store was closed at the time a police officer entered the store; as a result, the district court did not err in concluding defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public areas of the store where the synthetic marijuana which formed the basis for a search warrant application had been left in plain view; assuming, without deciding, the warrant was deficient, evidence seized during the search was admissible under the Leon good-faith exception; post-warrant search of vehicle parked at the store upheld; a second search was constitutional because the property owner had consented to the search. Judge Bright, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [ August 13, 2015
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.