United States v. Oliver, No. 17-3627 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
A “confidential reliable informant” told police that Oliver and his co-conspirators would mail packages of cocaine to Minnesota from Maricopa, Arizona. The postal inspector found one package from Maricopa, Arizona and another with similar handwriting from Chandler, Arizona. With a search warrant, officers found cocaine inside each. The informant stated that Oliver would be transporting cocaine in a BMW that would arrive in Minneapolis on November 30, 2014. On that date, police stopped and impounded a BMW that belonged to Oliver. Days later, with a warrant, police searched the vehicle and discovered six kilograms of cocaine, and executed a warrant to search Oliver's hotel room, where they recovered cell phones but no drugs. Oliver’s co-conspirator (Williams) testified that he made multiple trips to Arizona at Oliver’s request to transport cash for buying drugs and that in November 2014, he and another co-conspirator each mailed cocaine from different towns in Arizona at Oliver’s direction. Convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, Oliver was sentenced to 204 months' imprisonment.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the government’s key witness—Williams—lacked credibility and that the district court erred in denying Oliver's motions to dismiss the second indictment, to disclose the identity of the informant, and to suppress the searches of his BMW and hotel room. Williams also unsuccessfully argued that the court should have given the jury an accomplice instruction regarding Williams’s testimony and that he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the second indictment because dismissal of the first indictment did not violate Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) or defendant's due process rights; no error in denying defendant's motion to disclose the identity of an informant or have the court conduct an in camera examination regarding the informant; there was probable cause to search a vehicle defendant was using to transport drugs; the affidavits submitted in support of the motion to search a hotel room defendant had used established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, and the warrant's language permitting seizure of "other media" was broad enough to support seizure of cell phones found in the room; no error in denying defendant's request for an instruction on accomplice testimony; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's drug conspiracy conviction and the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence; defendant's ineffective-assistance of counsel claim is not ripe for review.
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.