United States v. Houston Oliver
950 F.3d 556
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background:
- On Nov. 2014 police received a tip from a confidential, reliable informant that Oliver and co-conspirators were mailing cocaine from Arizona to Minnesota; two mailed packages were intercepted and found to contain cocaine.
- The informant predicted a BMW belonging to Oliver would arrive in Minneapolis on Nov. 30; police stopped and later searched the BMW and found ~6 kg of cocaine in the trunk.
- Police executed a warrant at a hotel room rented by Oliver and seized personal items, including cell phones; no drugs were found there.
- Oliver was indicted in May 2015; the Government moved to dismiss that indictment without prejudice in March 2016. A second indictment was returned Sept. 2016. Oliver moved to dismiss the second indictment and sought disclosure of the informant and suppression of the vehicle and hotel searches; the district court denied those motions.
- At trial, co-conspirator Desmond Williams testified against Oliver; the jury convicted Oliver of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and the court sentenced him to 204 months’ imprisonment.
Issues:
| Issue | Oliver's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 2016 dismissal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) required dismissal with prejudice or violated due process | Rule 48 does not permit dismissal without prejudice; the ex parte dismissal deprived Oliver of notice and thus the second indictment should be dismissed | Precedent permits dismissals without prejudice; motion and order were publicly filed so Oliver could have challenged them; no due process violation | Denied. Prior Eighth Circuit precedent allows dismissal without prejudice; no procedural due process violation. |
| Whether identity of confidential informant must be disclosed or reviewed in camera | Williams was the informant and his identity is material; disclose or in camera review required | Informant-identity privilege applies; defendant offered only speculation that informant’s identity was material; no basis for disclosure or in camera review | Denied. Defendant failed to show materiality beyond speculation; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Legality of vehicle stop/search and hotel search; scope of warrant and seizure of cell phones | Stop/search lacked probable cause; dog search of trunk unlawful; hotel warrant lacked probable cause and did not authorize seizure of cell phones | Informant had a track record and tip was corroborated (packages and BMW arrival) so probable cause existed; automobile exception applied; warrant’s "other media" language reasonably covered cell phones | Denied suppression. Probable cause supported the BMW search; hotel warrant supported seizure, and cell phones fell within the warrant’s scope. |
| Jury instruction / sufficiency / new trial / ineffective assistance of counsel | District court should have given an accomplice instruction sua sponte; Williams’s testimony was uncorroborated so evidence insufficient and new trial warranted; trial counsel was impaired after brain surgery and provided ineffective assistance | Williams’s testimony was corroborated by independent evidence (BMW, intercepted packages, lease/handwriting); no mandatory sua sponte instruction; ineffective-assistance claim is unripe and record undeveloped—better raised on §2255 | Denied. No plain error in instructions; evidence was sufficient and new-trial motion properly denied; ineffective-assistance claim deferred to postconviction proceedings due to lack of developed record. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeMarrias v. United States, 487 F.2d 19 (8th Cir. 1973) (Rule 48 dismissals at government request do not bar later prosecution)
- United States v. Arradondo, 483 F.2d 980 (8th Cir. 1973) (Rule 48 dismissals construed as without prejudice)
- United States v. Harrington, 951 F.2d 876 (8th Cir. 1991) (informant-identity privilege; defendant must show materiality beyond speculation)
- United States v. Mazzulla, 932 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2019) (in camera review not compelled by mere speculation about undisclosed material)
- United States v. Winarske, 715 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2013) (informant tips can establish probable cause when informant is reliable or predicts events)
- United States v. Walker, 840 F.3d 477 (8th Cir. 2016) (automobile exception allows vehicle and trunk searches when probable cause exists)
- United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (warrant language referencing media may encompass cell phones)
- United States v. Crenshaw, 359 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2004) (uncorroborated accomplice testimony can suffice if not incredible or unsubstantial)
- United States v. Sanchez-Gonzalez, 643 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2011) (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily deferred to §2255 when record is undeveloped)