United States v. Navarette, No. 20-1285 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where the initial duration of the traffic stop was justified by defendant's inability to produce the basic identifying information the officer requested and the time it took for her to address this issue. Furthermore, by the time the officer handcuffed defendant, she had moved beyond addressing defendant's traffic offense and begun investigating ordinary criminal wrongdoing where defendant was on federal probation for a firearm offense, and she had seen a loaded gun magazine in plain view in the pocket of the driver's side door. Therefore, the officer's extension of the stop was properly supported by reasonable suspicion that other criminal activity was afoot and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The court also concluded that, in light of this circuit's silence on whether Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968), permits the use of a defendant's suppression hearing testimony for impeachment purposes, this court cannot say that the district court's decision to allow the government to impeach defendant at trial with his prior testimony at the suppression hearing was not plain error.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The initial portion of the traffic stop was extended by the defendant's inability to produce basic identifying documents and the time it took the officer to contact dispatch and attempt to determine defendant's identity; during this initial investigation, the officer learned that defendant was on federal probation and that his possession of a loaded handgun magazine, which the officer saw in plain sight, was likely a criminal offense; as a result, the officer had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and she could extend the traffic stop to address her suspicions; in light of this circuit's silence as to whether Simmons v. U.S., 390 U.S. 377 (1968), permits the use of a defendant's suppression hearing testimony for impeachment purposes, this court cannot say that the district court's decision to allow the government to impeach defendant at trial with his prior testimony at the suppression hearing was not plainly error.
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.