981 F.3d 1119
8th Cir.2020Background
- Officers Messer and Liddle received an intelligence memorandum from an informant reporting that Shane LaGrange, a known meth user, possessed a pink Glock with camo grips and was staying in hotels on 33rd Ave SW. The memo bore the subject line “Burglary/Wanted Subject/Officer Safety Information.”
- While patrolling that area, officers observed a white vehicle; Messer recognized the driver as LaGrange after the driver tried to hide his face and then accelerated away when officers returned.
- Officers followed LaGrange into a restaurant parking lot, exited their car, ordered him to show his hands, handcuffed and detained him after seeing his hand near his waistband.
- Officers learned LaGrange’s license was suspended, arrested him for that offense (three minutes after contact), searched him incident to arrest and found methamphetamine; a search of the vehicle turned up a firearm; LaGrange made incriminating statements.
- LaGrange moved to suppress the drugs, firearm, and statements as fruits of an unlawful seizure; the district court denied the motion. On appeal, the government defended the stop and alternatively relied on other grounds; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that officers had reasonable suspicion LaGrange unlawfully possessed a firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain LaGrange for investigation of unlawful firearm possession | LaGrange: officers lacked reasonable suspicion; informant tip was unreliable and did not justify seizure | Government: informant’s tip (direct observation + detailed weapon description) corroborated by location, known meth use, furtive driving and concealment, and hand near waistband provided reasonable suspicion | Court: reasonable suspicion existed to investigate unlawful firearm possession; investigatory stop justified |
| Whether evidence and statements should be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful seizure | LaGrange: evidence and statements are inadmissible if initial stop was unlawful | Government: initial stop was lawful; probable cause developed for arrest; subsequent searches and statements therefore admissible | Court: because initial seizure was lawful, arrest, searches, and statements were valid and admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morgan, 729 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review and furtive behavior analysis)
- United States v. Pratt, 355 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2004) (appellate court may affirm suppression denial on any record-supported ground)
- United States v. Walker, 555 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2009) (unusual driving behavior can support reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Kent, 531 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing informant reliability from anonymous tips)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (direct observation by informant increases tip reliability)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant tips)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officers may make investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion)
- Florida v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts supporting criminal activity)