United States v. Andrew Pierson, No. 22-1918 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
The United States indicted Defendant for illegal exportation of firearm parts from the United States to Mexico. Mexican authorities apprehended Defendant while he was living in Mexico. In conjunction with his arrest, Mexican authorities searched both his vehicle and his Mexican residence. They returned Defendant to the United States border, allowing him to cross the border into the United States, where he was arrested by United States authorities. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the searches. He also filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on an alleged violation of his due process rights premised on his treatment by Mexican authorities. The district court denied both motions. The district court imposed an upward variance and sentenced him to 144 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed the denial of his suppression and dismissal motions, as well as the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that the record reflects Defendant made his Miranda waiver “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Further, Defendant’s that the district court clearly erred in concluding he self-surrendered is merely an additional attempt to show a joint venture. In this case, the district court explained that it was going above the Guidelines range in order to serve as a deterrent to people going to Mexico to assist cartels. The resulting sentence, while significantly above the Guidelines range, was well below the statutory maximum of 240 months and based on applicable Section 3553(a) factors. Defendant has not shown the sentence imposed was an abuse of discretion.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. With respect to Mexican authorities' actions in seizing and searching defendant prior to bringing him to the U.S. - Mexican border, the conduct did not shock the judicial conscience, and the evidence seized by those authorities was admissible; on this record, the district court did not err in declining to extend the exclusionary rule to the alleged conduct of the Mexican authorities; U.S. law enforcement was not engaged in a joint venture with Mexican law authorities warranting extension of the exclusionary rule to his seizure and subsequent search in Mexico; the district court did not err in determining that defendant's Miranda waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; due process challenge rejected as there was no evidence that U.S. authorities tortured defendant, knew of any torture, or paid Mexican officials to carry it out; the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance, and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.