United States v. Campos, No. 15-1346 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Officers received a report that a man might need medical attention. The officers found defendant lying on the sidewalk next to a fallen bicycle, and when the officer righted defendant's bicycle, an unzipped bag attached to the handlebars came open, revealing two firearms and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of drugs and a firearm. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion because the officer did not conduct a search, but rather saw defendant's firearm in plain view in a public area. The court concluded that the officer's movement of the bicycle under the unique circumstances of this case did not constitute a search and did not therefore implicate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant also challenged the imposition of a condition of supervised release that he obtain no additional tattoos. The government argued that the cost of tattoos would provide a hindrance to defendant's societal rehabilitation because the cost would interfere with his ability to pay for court-ordered substance abuse and mental health counseling. The court disagreed, concluding that the prohibition on this expenditure is not related to defendant's educational, vocational, medicinal, or other correctional needs, and has no connection to the other 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. The court modified the condition.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Officers' action in moving defendant's bike after they found him and the bike on the ground was not a search and they could seize a firearm which was in plain view after they righted the bike; the district court abused its discretion by adding as a special condition of defendant's supervised release a condition that the could not obtain any additional tattoos, as the prohibition on this particular kind of expenditure was not related to defendant's educational, vocational, medicinal or other correctional need and was not justified by any other 3553(a) factor; the court could prohibit defendant from getting any tattoos while incarcerated as the Bureau of Prison's inmate policies prohibit tattooing.
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.