United States v. Boslau
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Boslau was interviewed at Grand Island Police Department about firearms connected to Soumpholphakdy and Bouatic at a small, windowless room; his license was taken for part of the interview.
- Investigators framed the interview as informational but later introduced potential criminal exposure and leniency to coerce cooperation.
- Boslau admitted to drug use, allowing Soumpholphakdy to use firearms, and to purchasing firearms for Soumpholphakdy, after initial denials.
- Indictment charged Boslau with knowingly transferring firearms to a prohibited person and making false statements about firearm purchases.
- Boslau moved to suppress the November 25, 2008 interview; the district court denied the motion; statements were admitted at trial.
- A jury convicted Boslau on both counts; he was sentenced to 57 months and three years of supervised release, with a 4-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suppression ruling was correct | Boslau contends custodial Miranda violations and involuntariness. | United States argues not in custody and statements voluntary. | No custody; statements voluntary; suppression denial affirmed. |
| Whether the unlawful user instruction was correct | District definition overly broad; should require near-addiction standard (Herrera I). | Turnbull supports broader 'actively engaging' standard; Herrera I rejected. | District court's instruction not an abuse of discretion; supported by Turnbull. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence for conviction on Counts 1 and 2 | Soumpholphakdy unreliable; testimony insufficient. | Credible testimony corroborated by Boslau's statements; sufficient evidence. | Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions. |
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6) applies | Enhancement baseless due to reliance on unreliable testimony. | Testimony corroborated by Boslau's statements; proper application. | Enhancement applied; no clear error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1349 (8th Cir. 1990) (tests custody by six-factor framework)
- United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2004) (custody factors framework application)
- United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135 (8th Cir. 2006) (nonexclusive custody factors)
- United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (voluntariness standard and totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Turnbull, 349 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 2003) (upholding Treasury definition of unlawful user; temporal nexus)
- Herrera I, 289 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2002) (early, stricter definition of unlawful user; later vacated in Herrera II)
- Herrera II, 313 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 2002) (vacated Herrera I approach; affirmed Turnbull reasoning)
- United States v. Patterson, 431 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2005) (contemporaryness and regularity in unlawful user discussions)
- United States v. Street, 531 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review of evidence)
- United States v. Beck, 496 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2007) (sufficiency and evidentiary sufficiency standards)