United States v. Mario Evans, 830 F.3d 761

Late on Aug. 2, 2013, Officer Douglas found a car parked in an open bay of an abandoned carwash in a high-crime area and encountered Mario Evans, a known felon; Douglas considered the situation dangerous and called for backup.
After backup arrived, Douglas entered the open bay and, without opening the car door, shone a flashlight into Evans’s vehicle and observed marijuana and a handgun on the front passenger seat; officers then arrested Evans and seized the items.
Magistrate Judge Crites‑Leoni recommended denying Evans’s motion to suppress, concluding the flashlight inspection and subsequent seizure fell within the plain‑view and protective‑search doctrines; the district court adopted the R&R and denied suppression.
Evans was convicted at trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and sentenced to 221 months; he appealed, renewing Fourth Amendment arguments and raising recusal and jury‑panel claims.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the warrantless viewing and seizure were justified by a reasonable-suspicion Terry stop, a limited protective sweep, plain view, and automobile‑exception probable cause; Evans’s recusal and jury fair‑cross‑section claims failed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment: flashlight inspection/seizure of contraband	Evans: warrantless flashlight search and seizure violated Fourth Amendment; suppression required	Gov: officer had justification to be in bay; plain view and protective‑search doctrines apply; Evans had no privacy in bay	Court: Held lawful — officer had reasonable suspicion to justify protective entry; plain view and automobile exceptions permitted seizure
Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455	Evans: Magistrate Crites‑Leoni should have recused for prior AUSA employment and prior involvement in unrelated matter	Gov: magistrate had no involvement in this case; longstanding practice not to disqualify absent direct involvement; magistrate addressed concern and Evans acquiesced	Court: Not preserved for appeal and meritless in any event; no abuse of discretion and § 455(b)(3) inapplicable
Sixth Amendment: fair‑cross‑section (all‑white venire)	Evans: all 36 prospective jurors were white, violating right to jury drawn from fair cross‑section	Gov: panel was randomly selected; no evidence of systematic exclusion	Court: Rejected — Evans presented no evidence of systematic exclusion; single venire disparity insufficient

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (establishes that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable except for well‑delineated exceptions)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (authorizes brief investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (permits limited vehicle searches for officer safety during investigatory stops)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (requires officers not to have violated the Fourth Amendment in positioning themselves to view evidence in plain view)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (plurality) (plain‑view doctrine applied where illumination reveals incriminating items)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (permits limited protective sweeps for officer safety during in‑home arrests)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (automobile exception: probable cause justifies warrantless search of vehicle)