United States v. Jerry Conley, No. 22-2413 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress as the police officer had reasonable suspicion to arrest defendant, and the search of his person was incident to his arrest; the search of the vehicle was justified because the officer saw a firearm in plain view; defendant's interview was Mirandized, and his statements were voluntary and admissible.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2413 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jerry Michael Conley lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: January 5, 2023 Filed: January 10, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jerry Conley appeals after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He challenges the district court’s1 denial of his motion to 1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern suppress evidence. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Conley’s motion to suppress. See United States v. Guzman, 926 F.3d 991, 997 (8th Cir. 2019). The officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by checking on Conley and the other occupant of the vehicle and asking for their identification. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177, 185 (2004); United States v. Halter, 988 F.3d 1042, 1046 (8th Cir. 2021). Once the officer discovered that neither of the occupants of the vehicle had a valid driver’s license and that the vehicle was stolen, he had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to seize Conley and ultimately arrest him. See Young v. United States, 344 F.2d 1006, 1008 (8th Cir. 1965). The search of Conley’s person was justified as incident to his arrest, see United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900, 905 (8th Cir. 2010); the search of the vehicle was justified because the officer saw the firearm in plain view, see United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 693 (8th Cir. 2019); the interviews of Conley were Mirandized; and Conley did not present any evidence to demonstrate that his statements were involuntary, see United States v. Syslo, 303 F.3d 860, 866 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________ District of Missouri. -2-
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.
