United States v. Freeman, No. 19-2055 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court applied the Supreme Court's analysis in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981), and Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186, 200 (2013), holding that defendant's brief detention was permissible and that the police had valid justifications for the detention. In this case, the officers' brief detention of the vehicle's passengers and approach of the car were constitutionally permissible; during the approach, the officers developed probable cause to search the car when they smelled marijuana and saw defendant's furtive movements; and thus the brief seizure and subsequent search of the vehicle based on probable cause was constitutional.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Colloton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Officers were executing a search warrant at a home searching for a bank robber when they walked by defendant's vehicle, which was parked in the immediate vicinity of the house, and smelled marijuana; the officers had previously observed the bank robbery suspect interact with the occupants of the car; the officers detained defendant and seized a weapon from the car; in sum, the court finds defendant's initial detention was permissible under the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981); the officers' brief detention of the car's passengers and their approach to the car were constitutionally permissible; during that approach to the car the officers developed probable cause because of the smell of marijuana and defendant's furtive movements; as a result, the brief seizure of defendant and subsequent search of the car based on probable cause was constitutional, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Judge Stras, concurring in the judgment.
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.