United States v. Lewis, No. 16-3308 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and then moved to suppress evidence obtained by a search of a tattoo shop where he worked and the seizure of the handgun. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The Eighth Circuit held that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the work area and the officers' entrance into the work area did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the initial seizure of the handgun did not fall within the plain-view exception because, when an officer grabbed the gun off the shelf, the incriminating character of the gun was not immediately apparent. In the alternative, a reasonable officer could not draw specific reasonable inferences from these facts to justify seizure of the handgun and thus the Government failed to carry its burden to show the initial warrantless seizure of the handgun was permitted. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant failed to show he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a work area of the tattoo shop where he worked, and the police officers' entrance into the work area did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; when the officers seized defendant's handgun, which was on a shelf in his work area, they did not know he was a felon and the incriminating character of the weapon was not immediately apparent; as a result, the officer could not seize the handgun under the plain-view exception to warrantless searches; however, given that the government has a legitimate interest in officer safety and that temporary seizure of the weapons was less intrusive than a Terry frisk, the officers could temporarily seize the handgun, which was in plain view, so long as a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety or that of others was in danger; applying this standard, under these circumstances, a reasonable officer could not draw specific reasonable inferences from the facts to justify seizure of the gun, as the officers did not suspect defendant or any customer of wrongdoing and defendant did not engage in any behavior indicating he posed a threat to the officers; as a result, the government failed to carry its burden to show that the initial warrantless seizure of the handgun was permitted.
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.