United States v. Eric Griggs, No. 21-3816 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant was arrested in connection to a narcoticcs trafficking operation after police pulled over the vehicle he was riding in as a passenger. The driver consented to a search, during which offers found heroin. Officers seized Defendant's phone and obtained a warrant on the basis that Defendant was a drug dealer.
The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress the contents of his phone under the Wiretap Act, as well as his statements to police. The court later denied his motions for a directed verdict and new trial. Defendant appealed the denial of his motions as well as his sentence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Regarding the motion to suppress, officers had probable cause to approach the car based on the evidence in the officers' possession. The Eighth Circuit also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict and motion for a new trial.
Finally, the Eighth Circuit found that the district court reviewed all the evidence that Defendant presented to the court and did not err in weighing the evidence differently than Defendant would have preferred.
Court Description: [Melloy, Author, with Gruender and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Police officers' use of a seized phone to contact defendant and set up a drug deal with defendant did not violate the Wiretap Act; officers had probable cause to approach defendant's car; inaccurate statement in the search warrant application did not require suppression of the evidence when the rest of the information provided established probable cause; even assuming certain testimony the government introduced was false, there was no reasonable likelihood it affected the verdict; challenge to jury instructions rejected;; evidentiary arguments rejected; no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ November 17, 2022 ]
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.