34 F.4th 642
8th Cir.2022Background
- Undercover South Dakota agent posted an ad on a classified site with digitally altered photos and stated the poster was age 20; in texts the agent (posing as a pimp) told respondents the girl was "15 but gonna be 16" and quoted prices.
- Slim texted the ad, confirmed availability after being told the juvenile age, negotiated price, agreed to bring condoms and cash ($200), and arranged to meet at a gas station.
- Slim drove to the agreed meeting place and was arrested; police searched the vehicle and recovered condoms, $200, and two cell phones.
- A grand jury indicted Slim for attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), 1594(a)) and attempted enticement of a minor by interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)).
- District court denied Slim’s suppression motion (finding probable cause and valid vehicle search), excluded his prior attorney’s testimony as hearsay, and convicted Slim after a bench trial; Slim appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Slim's Argument | Gov't's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of suppression: warrantless arrest/probable cause | Arrest lacked probable cause; state officers lacked authority to arrest for federal crime | Texts, agreement to pay, condoms, and travel to meeting supplied probable cause for attempted trafficking/enticement; state-law authority irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis | Affirmed: probable cause existed; arrest reasonable under Fourth Amendment |
| 1b. Vehicle search | Search of car was unreasonable without warrant | Search incident to arrest and Gant rule allowed searching vehicle for evidence of the offense of arrest | Affirmed: officers reasonably believed vehicle contained evidence; search valid |
| 2. Indictment sufficiency | Charges invalid because alleged victim was fictitious/non-existent | Precedent permits attempt/enticement convictions based on defendant's subjective belief that victim was a minor | Affirmed: indictment sufficient when defendant believed the person was a minor |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | Evidence insufficient to prove intent and substantial step for attempt offenses | Texts admitting age, price negotiation, agreement to bring condoms and cash, and travel to meeting show intent and substantial steps for both §1591 attempt and §2422(b) attempt | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to sustain both attempt convictions |
| 4. Exclusion of prior-attorney testimony (hearsay) | Excluding testimony that Slim said he sought a massage violated FRE and due process | Ruling on hearsay was within court's discretion; any error was harmless given other overlapping evidence (Slim's own testimony, texts, witnesses) | Affirmed: exclusion harmless; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wolff, 796 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2015) (intent and substantial-step precedent for attempted commercial sex trafficking of a minor)
- United States v. Hensley, 982 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2020) (attempt liability and substantial-step analysis for §2422(b))
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle search incident to arrest; search permitted if vehicle may contain evidence of the offense of arrest)
- United States v. Stegall, 850 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2017) (application of Gant in the Eighth Circuit)
- Nader v. City of Papillion, 917 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2019) (officer need not credit suspect’s post-arrest explanation when assessing probable cause)
- United States v. Larive, 794 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2015) (elements of §2422(b) and use of interstate facilities)
- United States v. Espejo, 912 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 2019) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)