United States v. Rush
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16822
8th Cir.2011Background
- On Oct. 6, 2008, three masked robbers robbed TierOne Bank in Lincoln, Nebraska; Rush was arrested along with Cotton and Short.
- Rush and Cotton left CCC-Omaha to commit the robbery; Short provided clothes and a hammer, and Rush used a stolen blue Chrysler LeBaron as part of the plan.
- Robbery occurred at 12:09 p.m.; $26,500.42 was stolen; surveillance footage showed the robbers but did not identify them.
- Police radio dispatches around 12:15 p.m. described three Black males and a blue Chrysler, with later notes of a red vehicle and a white male.
- A Caprice with three Black males was followed by deputies; Cotton hid money in his shoe and in the car; officers later found cash and robbery-related items in the Caprice.
- Rush was indicted on Oct. 21, 2009; he moved to suppress, the district court denied; trial resulted in a conviction and a 168‑month sentence; Rush later pled guilty to a false declaration in a related matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deputy Price’s initial contact with Rush was a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | Rush argues it was an unlawful seizure | Rush argues consensual encounter; no seizure occurred | Consensual encounter; no seizure required suspicion |
| Whether there was reasonable suspicion to detain Rush | Rush had insufficient basis for detention | Circumstances created reasonable suspicion (robbery link, currency, flight) | Yes; brief investigative detention warranted given robbery context and cash risk |
| Whether exclusion of police radio hearsay was reversible error | Hearsay evidence relevant to show Deputy Price's state of mind | Hearsay is harmless given sufficiency of other evidence | Harmless error; no reversal warranted |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Rush’s conviction | Insufficient corroboration beyond Cotton’s testimony | Cumulative circumstantial evidence supports conviction | Sufficient evidence supports conviction; credibility determinations for jury |
| Whether the addendum about the false declaration affects the outcome | Addendum material to challenge the conviction | Evidence limited and guilty verdict supported independently | Moot/harmless; no reversal needed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hogan, 539 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; clear error and de novo review)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (seizure requires government restraint; consensual encounter if free to leave)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounters during transport do not require suspicion)
- United States v. Barry, 394 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2005) (consensual encounter analysis with no show of authority)
- United States v. Olson, 262 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2001) (circumstances supporting reasonable suspicion after robbery; cash possession)