United States v. Ronald Finley, Jr., No. 22-1014 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendants (D1 and D2) were each convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) after the district court denied their motions to suppress. On appeal, Defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motions to suppress.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of both Defendants' motions to suppress. Pertaining to D1, the court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that a reasonable police officer would have found that D1 was fleeing with the intent to avoid arrest. The interaction occurred during the day in a public area, and police officers were wearing tactical vests emblazoned "Police" and displayed badges. The officers also made repeated commands that were consistent with their intent to arrest him.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court correctly denied defendant Finley's motion to suppress as the totality of the circumstances - his interaction with police during the day in a public area, that law enforcement officers wore tactical vests emblazoned "Police" and displayed badges, and that the officers repeatedly issued commands consistent with arrest - was sufficient to lead a reasonable police officer to believe Finley was fleeing with intent to avoid arrest in violation of Minnesota law; with respect to defendant Sommerville, officers arrested him after he fled from them, at which point they had probable cause to arrest him for fleeing with intent to avoid arrest, and the court properly denied his motion to suppress the weapon seized as part of the arrest; even assuming the district court erred in granting the government's motion in limine and in permitting the government to introduce evidence connecting defendant Sommerville with an earlier drive-by shooting, the error was harmless; where the district court sent the voir dire pool a written questionnaire and then declined to let the defendants see the written responses, the court could not determine whether the subsequent voir dire questioning was adequate, and the matter is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of disclosing the completed questionnaires to defendant Sommerville and the government and taking any steps it deems necessary to determine whether concealed jury bias prejudiced Sommerville, including holding a hearing - see McDonough Power Equip., Inc v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548,556 (1984); the court retains jurisdiction over the appeal to review the district court's supplemental order.
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.