977 F.3d 679
8th Cir.2020Background
- Everett went to the Richard Bolling Federal Building, confronted FPS officers, threatened to kill an officer after a taser was drawn, and violently resisted arrest (kicking, twisting, biting); surveillance video corroborated officers’ accounts.
- A set of car keys fell during the struggle; officers observed a silver/gray car illegally parked in an emergency-only space that was registered to Everett’s girlfriend, Tiara Gray.
- While Everett was taken to the hospital by ambulance, KCPD officers decided to tow the car under departmental towing/patrol policy and conducted a routine inventory search, discovering a loaded handgun under the driver’s seat.
- The district court suppressed Everett’s custodial statement about the gun under Miranda, but denied suppression of the gun itself, concluding the inventory search was valid and the gun would inevitably have been discovered.
- At trial the government admitted three jail phone calls in which Everett discussed the gun, the confrontation, and suggested Gray say she had loaned the car; a jury convicted Everett of threatening a federal officer, forcibly resisting a federal officer, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Everett appealed, arguing (1) the gun should have been suppressed, (2) the jail calls were unfairly prejudicial, (3) the evidence was insufficient as to intent and possession, and (4) Rehaif requires reversal of the felon-in-possession conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Everett) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of firearm found in towed car | Tow and inventory were pretextual because tow truck was called ~30 minutes later and decision rested on Everett’s incriminating statement | Tow was authorized by KCPD policy because driver was arrested and car was illegally parked; inventory search followed neutral, standardized procedures | Inventory search valid; 30-minute gap not suspicious; gun admission affirmed |
| Admission of jail phone calls (Rule 403) | Calls were unduly prejudicial, boasted tone and could be obtained by other means; risk of confusing jury | Calls contained direct, highly probative admissions about the threat, possession, and efforts to shape Gray’s story | No abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed risk of unfair prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for threats and resisting (Counts 1 & 2) | Intoxication/drug influence negated specific intent to threaten or intentionally resist | Surveillance, officer testimony, and calls show deliberate threats and voluntary resistance | Evidence sufficient; jury reasonably found required intent |
| Sufficiency and Rehaif challenge for felon-in-possession (Count 3) | Government failed to prove Everett knew he belonged to the felon category as required by Rehaif | Everett stipulated to prior felony; phone calls and conduct show he knew he was barred; any instructional error was harmless | Failure to instruct on felon-knowledge would be error under Rehaif but was not plain reversible error here; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory-search exception permits warrantless searches of impounded vehicles performed under routine procedures)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (police may impound and inventory vehicles under standardized criteria not motivated by investigatory suspicion)
- United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) (Miranda violation does not automatically require suppression of physical evidence absent involuntariness)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (in § 922(g) prosecutions government must prove defendant knew he belonged to the relevant prohibited category)
- United States v. Hollingshed, 940 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2019) (failure to give a Rehaif instruction is clear error, but harmless where record shows defendant knew he was a felon)
- United States v. Arrocha, 713 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2013) (inventory-search exception encompasses tow decision, search, and scope under local policy)
- United States v. Harris, 795 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2015) (officers may observe incriminating items during legitimate inventory searches if not conducted for investigative purposes)
- United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir. 2014) (constructive possession may be established by control or dominion over premises where firearm was found)