United States v. Smith
645 F.3d 998
8th Cir.2011Background
- Smith pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion and his statements; he challenges his 180-month sentence under § 924(e) for reliance on a Minnesota attempted burglary conviction as a violent felony; the suppression issue centers on a handgun seized during a car search following a dog sniff; the events began December 2, 2008, in Crystal, Minnesota, with Oestreich under a Harassment Restraining Order; Gomez arrested Oestreich and investigated the items Oestreich transferred to Smith’s car, with Oestreich providing information implicating Smith; Smith consented to a search of his person but not his car, a dog alerted to drugs, and a handgun was seized during a brief detention that led to his arrest and post-Miranda statements; the district court denied the suppression motion; the Armed Career Criminal Act issue focuses on whether Smith’s Minnesota attempted burglary conviction is a violent felony under the residual clause after James v. United States and related Supreme Court cases; the district court and court of appeals affirm
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the detention and search | Smith contends there was no valid detention after Oestreich’s arrest, prolonged detention, and arrest without probable cause | Gomez reasonably detained and searched under Terry and dog-sniff authorities given reasonable suspicion and safety concerns | Detention and search valid; suppression denied |
| Whether Oestreich’s tip and Smith’s responses gave reasonable suspicion to justify the dog sniff | Smith argues lack of probable cause for extended detention and search | Totality of circumstances supported reasonable, articulable suspicion | Reasonable suspicion established; continued investigation permissible under Terry and Caballes lineage |
| Whether Minnesota attempted burglary is a violent felony under ACCA residual clause | Solomon controls; Minnesota attempted burglary is a violent felony | Recent Supreme Court decisions call James to interpret residual clause; risk analysis supports inclusion | Minnesota attempted burglary qualifies as a violent felony under the residual clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Solomon v. United States, 998 F.2d 587 (8th Cir. 1993) (Minnesota second-degree attempted burglary treated as violent felony under residual clause (Solomon reaffirmed))
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (Attempted burglary can qualify under residual clause when there is an overt act directed toward entering or remaining in a structure; risk of injury similar to burglary)
- United States v. Horton, 611 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2010) (Reasonable, articulable suspicion evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (Totality of the circumstances governs reasonable suspicion)