United States v. Monson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7564
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Warrant issued to Monson's residence led to seizure of 33 firearms, 67 pounds of marijuana, and 266 marijuana plants.
- Monson was indicted on 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) offenses and 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) firearm charge; district court later suppressed seized items as warrant-invalid under Franks v. Delaware.
- Government dismissed prosecution without prejudice; Monson moved for Hyde Amendment attorney’s fees and expenses.
- District court denied Hyde Amendment request; Monson appealed challenging the denial as an abuse of discretion.
- Appellate panel affirmed, holding the government’s position was not vexatious or frivolous and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
- Dissent would reverse for misapplication of Hyde Amendment standards and potential bad-faith considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hyde Amendment award was proper | Monson—vexatious/frivolous/bad faith | Monson—prosecution not vexatious/frivolous/bad faith | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; not vexatious or frivolous |
| Whether Franks-based findings negate the Hyde Amendment relief | Franks violations show prosecutorial misconduct | Non-frivolous grounds supported the prosecution despite Franks findings | Affirmed: non-frivolous arguments supported the prosecution despite Franks issues |
| Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard for Hyde relief | District court misapplied standard distinguishing recklessness | Standard aligned with Hyde Amendment intent | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion (majority) on the Hyde standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Porchay v. United States, 533 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2008) (elements of vexatious/frivolous/bad faith are disjunctive for Hyde Amendment review)
- United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2007) (informant status and omissions may not always create Franks violation)
- United States v. Vesikuru, 314 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2002) (common sense interpretation of affidavits for triggering conditions)
- Braunstein v. United States, 281 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2002) (frivolous prosecution analysis requires legal merit, not mere error)
- Grubbs v. United States, 547 U.S. 90 (U.S. 2006) (anticipatory warrants and triggering conditions; probabilistic concepts)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1996) (abuse of discretion when district court errs on law)