United States v. Lillich, No. 20-2086 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (Count 2), and was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment.
The court found that the initial encounter between defendant and the officers was consensual and thus his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. In this case, the totality of the circumstances indicated that the officers' retention of defendant's identification did not restrain his liberty; the officers did not activate their patrol car's lighter or siren, or physically touch defendant; and the officers did not brandish their weapons or threaten arrest. The court also concluded that the officers did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights during the first encounter, and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the statements. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence found in defendant's car where defendant did not contest that the drug dog's positive alert on his car gave the officers probable cause to search it.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the police officers' conduct would not have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter, and defendant's initial encounter with police at a car wash was consensual and did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; nor did the officers violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights during the first encounter, and defendant's statements were admissible; once police seized drugs from the driver of defendant's car, they had reasonable suspicion to seize the car to await a drug dog sniff, and the drug dog's alert gave officers probable cause to search the car and seize the drugs and cell phone they found.
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.