United States v. Cartez Lamar Cook, 842 F.3d 597

On Nov. 25, 2013, police patrolling a high‑crime area in south Minneapolis noticed an idling car with two occupants and circled to check on it.
Officers parked behind the car, activated the patrol car’s “wig wag” lights, and approached; Cook voluntarily rolled down the driver‑side window and officers smelled marijuana.
Officers removed and handcuffed Cook, who then fled and was arrested several blocks away; officers later searched the towed vehicle pursuant to a warrant and found a firearm in the center console.
DNA on the gun was consistent with Cook (excluding 99.6% of the population) and ballistics linked the gun to a homicide (Derek Holt) three days earlier; Cook had been identified as a person of interest in that homicide.
Cook was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession), convicted by a jury, sentenced to 120 months, and appealed the denial of his suppression motion and the admission of circumstantial evidence linking him to Holt’s death.

Issue	Cook's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether officers’ initial approach/semi‑activation of lights and contact with Cook constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure making subsequent evidence fruit of an illegal seizure	The contact (parking behind, activating wig wag lights, approaching, knocking/approaching) was a show of authority amounting to a seizure prior to smelling marijuana	The approach was a consensual encounter; wig wag lights differ from full emergency lights and did not convey that compliance was required; no seizure occurred until officers removed Cook after smelling marijuana	No seizure occurred before officers detected marijuana; suppression denial affirmed
Whether circumstantial evidence tying Cook to Holt’s homicide should have been excluded as improper other‑crimes evidence	Evidence of Cook’s alleged involvement in Holt’s death was unduly prejudicial and not admissible to prove possession of the firearm	Evidence was probative of knowing possession because it tended to show Cook used the same gun days earlier; circumstantial evidence is admissible and cautionary instructions limited prejudice	Admission was not an abuse of discretion; evidence admissible as part of the immediate context to prove possession
Standards of review (ancillary issue)	—	—	Denial of suppression: de novo review of legal issues (facts undisputed); evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion

United States v. Barry, 394 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2005) (approach to parked car without ordering occupants out did not necessarily constitute a seizure)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounters allowed; seizure requires show of authority that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Fourth Amendment seizure requires physical force or show of authority)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) (test for whether a person is free to ignore police presence and go about business)
United States v. Dockter, 58 F.3d 1284 (8th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing warning lights on parked cars from full emergency lights used to signal moving vehicles to stop)
United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir. 2014) (other‑crimes evidence that logically proves an element of the charged offense is admissible as part of the immediate context)
United States v. Bass, 794 F.2d 1305 (8th Cir. 1986) (admissibility framework for evidence that is integral to the immediate context of the charged offense)
United States v. Tschacher, 687 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2012) (circumstantial evidence can be as probative as direct evidence)
United States v. Brown, 634 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 2011) (supporting the probative value of circumstantial proof)