United States v. Reed, No. 19-2139 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for six counts of interference with commerce by robbery. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress cell site location information (CSLI) obtained under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. 2703(d). In this case, when the officers obtained the information, the Supreme Court had not yet decided Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), which held that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI. Therefore, the evidence was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the officers acted with reasonable reliance on section 2703(d) and were not on notice that the statute was unconstitutional.
The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged robberies as intrinsic evidence and in admitting evidence regarding a Mississippi robbery to show defendant's identity. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice where defendant perjured himself at trial and attempted to coach a witness' testimony.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Gruender and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress cell site location information obtained under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703(d) because at the time law enforcement officers obtained the information the Supreme Court has not yet decided Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018, holding court orders under Sec. 2703(d) violated the Fourth Amendment, and the officers acted in reasonable reliance on the statute as it was not obviously unconstitutional when they sought the order; the evidence was, therefore admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule; no error in admitting evidence of uncharged robberies as the evidence about them revealed pattern and routine that helped explain how defendant committed the charged robberies; evidence of an uncharged Missouri robbery helped show identity and was admissible; no error in applying an enhancement for obstruction of justice under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 based on the court's determination that defendant perjured himself at trial and attempted to coach a witness's testimony.
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.