United States v. Parker, No. 18-3277 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for distributing a controlled substance near a protected location resulting in death and of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance near a protected location. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement where defendant's statements were consensual and he was never seized or detained. In this case, an officer's statement to "just kinda stay here" was not a seizure or a significant restraint on his movement, and latter statements to stay outside the apartment were made to assure the officer and defendant did not get in the way of medical staff and did not amount to a detention. The court explained that none of the other factors suggest that defendant's encounter had ripened into a seizure or custodial arrest. Even if the court assumed that defendant was seized and in custody at the police station, it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.
The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a lesser-included-offense jury instruction of possession of heroin for Count II, in addition to distribution of heroin; there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction; and the elements necessary to apply the concurrent sentence doctrine are present in this case.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant's initial interaction with police officers at the scene of his girlfriend's overdose was consensual and an officer's statement to "just kind stay here" was not a seizure or a significant restraint on his movement; later statements to remain outside the apartment building were made to assure the officer and defendant did not get in the way of medical staff and did not amount to a detention; no other factors suggest the encounter ripened into a seizure or custodial arrest; as defendant was not in custody at the time he made the statements, they were admissible even though he had not received Miranda rights; once defendant was taken to the police station, he was given Miranda rights before questioning, and his waiver of those rights was voluntary; the district court properly refused defendant's request for a lesser-included instruction of possession of heroin as opposed to the charged offense of possession with intent to distribute; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for distributing a controlled substance near a protected location resulting in death and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute near a protected location; defendant's concurrent life sentences affirmed.
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.