984 F.3d 1301
8th Cir.2021Background
- On Aug. 4, 2018, Cedar Rapids officers responded to a noise complaint at a house known for prior disturbances and drug activity; they encountered a parked car in an unlit alley with four occupants.
- Officer Haas approached; driver Cedric Jenkins admitted he had no license and was asked to step out so Haas could investigate the traffic violation. Passenger Deandre Warren attempted to exit and Haas said, “Sir, can you just stay in there for me, please.” Warren complied.
- Backup arrived; officers smelled marijuana, Officer Otis observed a baggie in the passenger door, removed and handcuffed Warren, and searched the car, finding marijuana and heroin.
- While in Haas’s squad car, Warren reached into his underwear and dropped multiple baggies of heroin and marijuana; those drugs were seized.
- Warren moved to suppress the seized drugs as fruits of an unlawful seizure; the magistrate and district court denied suppression (district court ruled the phrase was a request or, alternatively, a reasonable safety-based seizure). Warren pled guilty (reserving suppression appeal) and was sentenced as a career offender; he appealed suppression and the career-offender finding.
Issues
| Issue | Warren's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haas’s statement (“can you just stay in there for me, please”) constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure making subsequent drug evidence inadmissible | The polite instruction was an unlawful seizure of Warren without reasonable suspicion or probable cause | The language and tone were a request, not a command; even if a seizure, it was justified by officer-safety/status-quo concerns during a lawful stop of the driver | Court: No seizure—Haas’s words were a request; alternatively, if a seizure, it was objectively reasonable for officer safety. Suppression denied |
| Whether Warren’s prior convictions support career-offender status under USSG §4B1.2 | His three Illinois drug convictions are not “controlled substance offenses” and his Iowa strangulation conviction is not a “crime of violence” | The prior convictions qualify under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent | Court: Affirmed career-offender designation; bound by United States v. Merritt and United States v. Boleyn; issues preserved for en banc review |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passenger is seized only if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (distinguishes official commands from requests for Fourth Amendment seizure analysis)
- Drayton v. Ohio, 536 U.S. 194 (no seizure where no show of force or authoritative command)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (officer may order passengers out during a traffic stop for officer safety)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonable-suspicion standard for investigative stops)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (Fourth Amendment totality-of-circumstances standard for passenger detention during traffic stops)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (officers may take negligible safety precautions during stops)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer safety may justify ordering driver out of vehicle)
- Summers v. United States, 452 U.S. 692 (detention to facilitate execution of warrant and preserve safety/status quo)
- United States v. Merritt, 934 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2019) (prior Illinois drug convictions count for career-offender)
- United States v. Boleyn, 929 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2019) (Iowa domestic-assault-with-strangulation qualifies as a crime of violence)