United States v. Brooks
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14388
8th Cir.2011Background
- Brooks was convicted by jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- A confidential informant previously provided reliable information that Brooks sold drugs and guns from his basement apartment at 3909 Lexington, St. Louis.
- Officers, based on the CI's information, went to 3909 Lexington and observed Brooks near the basement stairs carrying a bag.
- Brooks discarded the bag, ran downstairs, and investigators recovered a twenty-gauge shotgun; Brooks admitted he possessed the firearm.
- Brooks moved in limine to suppress CI information; district court allowed testimony about the CI's information and proposed a limiting instruction, which was not given.
- After trial, Brooks absconded; he was tried in abstentia and later sentenced to 210 months in prison after extradition from Kentucky.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firearm was properly seized under the Fourth Amendment | Brooks | Brooks | The seizure was lawful under plain view; no curtilage violation |
| Confrontation Clause applicability of the CI information via Officer Schwerb testimony | Brooks | Brooks | CI statement offered to explain investigation, not testimonial; Confrontation Clause not violated |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a guilty verdict for felon in possession | Brooks | Brooks | Sufficient evidence: observed gun, Brooks's admission of possession |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilson, 565 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain view doctrine factors)
- United States v. Abumayyaleh, 530 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain view prerequisites)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (curtilage determination factors)
- United States v. McCaster, 193 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 1999) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas of apartment building)
- United States v. Reed, 733 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1984) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in public-adjacent area)
- United States v. Hatten, 68 F.3d 257 (8th Cir. 1995) (immediately apparent incriminating nature of gun)
- United States v. Garner, 907 F.2d 60 (8th Cir. 1990) (probable cause to associate property with criminal activity)
- United States v. James, 534 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008) (abandonment doctrine and warrantless searches)
- United States v. Holmes, 620 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (explanation of investigation vs. testimonial hearsay under Confrontation Clause)