44 F.4th 1067
8th Cir.2022Background
- On Oct. 25, 2019 Davenport police stopped a black Chevrolet Impala after a shooting report; Bragg (passenger) was arrested and an unloaded revolver was recovered from the map pocket near him; four iPhones were seized and one was identified as Bragg’s.
- A video recovered from Bragg’s iPhone (via warrant) showed him with a matching revolver days earlier.
- Detective Butt delayed 24 days before applying for a warrant to search the iPhone; warrants for Bragg’s residence and the phone later issued; Bragg remained in custody the entire time.
- At trial the government introduced videos from the phone; the jury convicted Bragg under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- At sentencing the district court applied the ACCA, treating a 2014 Iowa willful-injury conviction and two 2010 Illinois armed-robbery convictions as violent-felony predicates, and imposed 240 months’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Bragg’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 24‑day delay in seeking a warrant to search Bragg’s iPhone required suppression | 24‑day seizure without prompt warrant was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment; phone evidence should be suppressed | Delay was reasonable given custody, phones retain data (low staleness risk), ongoing complex investigations, priority to search residence, and phone had independent evidentiary value | Affirmed: delay not unreasonable under totality (custody, device nature, govt diligence); denial of suppression upheld |
| Admissibility of Bragg’s prior firearm convictions under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | Admission of 2010 armed robbery and 2014 willful injury was unduly prejudicial and was used to show propensity | Prior gun offenses were relevant to knowledge/intent, similar in kind, supported by records, and probative value outweighed prejudice with limiting instructions | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion admitting the convictions under Rule 404(b) |
| Whether 2014 Iowa willful-injury conviction is an ACCA "violent felony" under the force clause | Statute is overbroad because “serious injury” includes "disabling mental illness" and "act" can include omissions, so conviction need not involve physical force | Eighth Circuit precedent (Quigley/Clark) shows no realistic probability Iowa would convict without threatened or actual physical force; statute is indivisible and aligns with force clause | Affirmed: § 708.4(1) conviction qualifies as an ACCA violent felony under the force clause |
| Whether two 2010 Illinois armed-robbery convictions are ACCA predicates and were committed on different occasions | Illinois statute could permit reckless mens rea (Borden), so convictions may not meet force-clause; even if violent felonies, the two robberies might be the same "occasion" | Illinois law and precedent (Jones, Dembry) make intent/knowledge readily implicated (reckless basis unlikely); robberies occurred two days apart in different jurisdictions | Affirmed: both armed-robbery convictions are violent felonies and occurred on different occasions (separate victims, different days/locations), so count as two ACCA predicates |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (smartphone searches generally require a warrant)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (warrantless seizures to secure property pending a warrant may be reasonable but duration matters)
- United States v. Mays, 993 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2021) (totality/delay balancing test for seized electronic devices)
- United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2011) (long delay in searching device can be reasonable under circumstances)
- Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021) (warrantless seizure and extended detention of phone/camera can be unreasonable)
- United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985) (failure to seek return of property undermines claim delay harmed possessory interests)
- United States v. Burris, 22 F.4th 781 (8th Cir. 2022) (device’s independent evidentiary value supports seizure)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Quigley, 943 F.3d 390 (8th Cir. 2019) (Iowa "serious injury" statute is indivisible; qualifies under force clause)
- Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (offenses punishable by recklessness do not qualify as violent felonies under ACCA)
- United States v. Dembry, 914 F.3d 1185 (8th Cir. 2019) (Illinois armed robbery entails the amount of force the ACCA requires)
- United States v. Wooden, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) (multi‑factor test for whether multiple offenses occurred on "different occasions")