United States v. Andre Roberts
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16601
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Roberts stopped for an unilluminated rear plate in Cedar Rapids, IA, around 10:20 p.m. on Aug 7, 2009; he fled when asked to exit and was apprehended with marijuana and a firearm.
- Officer Boenish ran warrant checks on occupants after speaking with driver, then encountered Roberts about an outstanding warrant.
- Roberts moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the stop was unconstitutionally prolonged.
- Roberts pleaded guilty under a conditional agreement and reserved his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed a special supervised-release condition prohibiting alcohol use and entry into bars; Roberts appeals.
- The district court denied the suppression motion and upheld the special condition; the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant-check extended the stop under Johnson | Roberts contends inquiry prolonged seizure | Boenish's warrant check was concurrent with routine stop tasks | No Fourth Amendment violation; stop not prolonged |
| Whether the alcohol-based special condition is permissible | Roberts argues condition is improper given offense | Condition reasonably related to rehabilitation and preventing relapse | Special condition affirmed as properly related and individualized |
| Whether the court properly reviewed potential preservation issues | Unclear if objection preserved; review fallback | If preserved, abuse of discretion governs; if not, plain error applies | Court affirmed on the merits despite preservation question |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (officer inquiries unrelated to stop duration do not extend seizure)
- United States v. Munoz, 590 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2010) (routine stop tasks; de minimis delay permissible)
- United States v. Bracamontes, 614 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2010) (identification checks during traffic stop permitted)
- United States v. Norwood, 377 F. App'x 580 (8th Cir. 2010) (de minimis delay not a Fourth Amendment violation)
- United States v. Olivera-Mendez, 484 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2007) (brief on-topic questions during lawful stop permissible)
- United States v. Cloud, 594 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2010) (complications checking identification may prolong detention)
- United States v. Long, 532 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2008) (off-topic questions during lawful stop do not violate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Mosley, 672 F.3d 586 (8th Cir. 2012) (treating a defendant as a recovering addict can justify restrictions)
- United States v. Forde, 664 F.3d 1219 (8th Cir. 2012) (alcohol restrictions may be warranted to prevent cross-addiction)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing special conditions for abuse of discretion or plain error)