United States v. Sergio Jimenez, No. 22-2670 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a)(1) and (b)(1), after law enforcement found more than 1,500 grams of methamphetamine concealed in a vest on his person. He filed a motion to suppress, arguing that his detention and frisk were not supported by reasonable suspicion. The district court denied the motion. Defendant entered a conditional plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. On appeal, Defendant conceded that his first two encounters with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force Officer (TFO) were consensual and that his third encounter involving both TFOs began consensually. He argued only that his detention and subsequent frisk during this third encounter were neither consensual nor supported by reasonable suspicion, and, thus, the evidence obtained thereafter must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree
The Eighth Circuit reversed. The court explained that initially, it is questionable whether the TFOs would have even been justified in conducting a pat down, as the facts do not lend much credence to the claim that Jimenez may have been “armed and presently dangerous.” The court explained that even if it were to assume that the TFOs would have been justified in conducting a pat down of Defendant based on his efforts to keep his blanket on his person and his potential involvement in drug trafficking, the TFOs far exceeded the scope of these permissible bounds when they immediately leaped to the substantially more intrusive action of forcibly removing his blanket.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant, who was wearing a blanket over his shoulders as a cape was stopped by drug interdiction agents at the Omaha bus terminal; held, the officers erred in forcibly removing the blanket without first conducting a patdown search to determine if there were any weapons or hidden items present underneath the blanket; since the removal of the blanket violated the Fourth Amendment, all of the evidence subsequently discovered was inadmissible and must be suppressed; defendant's conviction is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Judge Stras, dissenting.
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.