United States v. Cook, No. 15-3651 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 120 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress the firearm where there was no Fourth Amendment seizure here until the officers removed defendant from the idling car. The court also noted that the wig wag lights activated by the officers are different from the full light bar which is used to notify motorists in moving vehicles that they are required to stop. Here, officers activated the wig wag lights in order to identify themselves as police for the safety of all parties involved. A reasonable person seeing the wig wag lights under these circumstances would have thought that he was still "at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business." Because defendant was not unlawfully seized, the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress. The court also concluded that the district court did not err by admitting circumstantial evidence that connected defendant to a shooting death involving the gun because it was highly probative of defendant's possession of the weapon. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. A reasonable person seeing the police car's lights - which had been activated in a distinctive wig wag pattern different from full emergency lights - would have thought he was still at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business, and officers did not seize defendant by approaching his parked car; defendant was only seized after he voluntarily rolled down his window and police smelled marijuana; no error in admitting circumstantial evidence which connected defendant to a shooting death involving the gun seized from his vehicle as the evidence was highly probative of defendant's possession of the firearm.
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.