United States v. Lawrence Williams
796 F.3d 951
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Jan. 26, 2013 an LPR alert on Officer Hendricks’s patrol car indicated Otis Hicks was associated with a nearby vehicle, wanted for first-degree domestic assault, and possibly armed; Hendricks could not see occupants before stopping the car.
- After the stop, Hendricks identified the driver as Hicks; Officer Christensen had the passenger (Lawrence Williams) exit the vehicle, observed nervous behavior, handcuffed him, and patted him down.
- Officer Christensen felt and removed a handgun from Williams’s waistband and then found a bag of heroin in Williams’s pocket.
- Williams was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm, moved to suppress the handgun and heroin, and tried to exclude prior firearm convictions under Rule 404(b); the district court denied suppression and admitted two prior firearm-possession convictions (excluding an older robbery conviction).
- At trial defense counsel attempted to cross-examine officers about an alleged practice of charging the occupant with the worst record; the court barred that line absent a proffered foundation and offered the defense the opportunity to produce a witness to lay foundation; the jury convicted Williams and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of traffic stop (Fourth Amendment) | Williams: LPR alert insufficient to create reasonable suspicion because it did not show the extent or timing of Hicks’s association with the car and officer could not identify driver before stop | Govt: Officer permissibly relied on LPR notice from another jurisdiction that linked a wanted person to the vehicle; LPR is analogous to other police notices/bulletins | Stop was reasonable; officer could rely on the LPR-generated notice and brief stop to check ID |
| Admission of prior firearm convictions (Rule 404(b)) | Williams: Prior convictions irrelevant, dissimilar, and too remote; prejudicial | Govt: Prior similar firearm-possession convictions are relevant to knowledge and intent and probative value outweighs prejudice | Admission of two prior firearm-possession convictions affirmed; district court did proper 404(b)/403 balancing and excluded an older robbery conviction |
| Cross-examination limitation (Sixth Amendment Confrontation) | Williams: Court barred cross-examining officers about motive/bias (alleged practice of charging occupant with worst record), violating confrontation rights | Govt: Defense failed to lay any foundation for the speculative bias theory; court gave chance to proffer witness | Limitation upheld; court did not abuse discretion nor violate Confrontation Clause because foundation was required and offered |
| Admission of heroin (intrinsic evidence / Rule 404(b) & Rule 403) | Williams: Heroin was extrinsic and should have required 404(b) analysis or been excluded as unfairly prejudicial | Govt: Heroin was intrinsic — found during same sequence as the gun — and bears on intent/knowledge; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Admission affirmed: heroin was intrinsic to the charged offense and admissible under 403 balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 ( Fourth Circuit) (stopping vehicle requires reasonable suspicion)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (Supreme Court) (passenger may be "seized" by traffic stop)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court) (fruits of unlawful search/seizure doctrine)
- United States v. Farnell, 701 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 2012) (reliance on another agency's wanted notice can justify Terry stop)
- United States v. Smith, 648 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 2011) (notice from another department supports Terry stop even if notice omits underlying facts)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 391 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2004) (similar principle regarding reliance on outside notices)
- United States v. Robinson, 670 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2012) (totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Walker, 470 F.3d 1271 (8th Cir. 2006) (prior firearm possession relevant to knowledge and intent)
- United States v. Brooks, 715 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2013) (distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic evidence for 404(b))
- United States v. Ruiz-Chavez, 612 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2010) (other-crime evidence intrinsic when it completes the story)
- United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2007) (scope of cross-examination and confrontation review)