United States v. Stanley Mosley, Jr.
878 F.3d 246
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- On May 20, 2016, shortly after a bank robbery in Palo, Iowa, a witness driving by reported seeing two hooded men flee and a gray/silver Ford Taurus as the only vehicle leaving the area; the witness later expressed uncertainty whether the Taurus was involved.
- Deputy Uher located and stopped a gray Taurus about eight minutes and ~5.8 miles from the bank; the car was registered to Farrah Franklin and driven by Katherine Pihl.
- After initial questioning, officers asked to check the trunk; about four minutes after the stop, the trunk was opened and officers found Mosley and Monden concealed with masks and cash; all three occupants were arrested and indicted for bank robbery.
- All three moved to suppress the stop and trunk search; the magistrate judge recommended denying suppression, the district court adopted that recommendation, and the defendants pleaded guilty reserving appeal rights.
- At sentencing the district court designated Mosley a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, applied the guideline range but varied downward to 132 months, stating that the sentence would be the same absent the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the traffic stop (reasonable suspicion) | Stop unsupported because officers were unsure the Taurus was involved | Officers had reasonable suspicion based on eyewitness tip, close temporal/geographic proximity, and matching vehicle description | Stop lawful; reasonable suspicion existed under the totality of circumstances |
| Reliability of the tip | Tip unreliable because police learned it indirectly and knew little about tipster | Tip reliable: eyewitness, contemporaneous report, tipster identified by name/phone so accountable | Tip was reliable under Navarette factors; supported stop |
| Whether the stop was unconstitutionally prolonged | Stop should have ended after Pihl identified herself and no second occupant was visible | Continued investigation reasonable given mission to determine whether vehicle was involved (possibility of getaway driver or hidden suspects); radio coordination was brief | Duration was reasonable; stop not measurably extended in violation of Rodriguez |
| Standing to challenge trunk search | Pihl and Monden argue they had privacy interests in the vehicle/trunk | Government: vehicle owner reported car stolen/not loaned; any permission to Monden was unauthorized | Pihl and Monden lack standing—no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle; suppression denied |
| Career-offender designation for Mosley | Mosley contends his instant and/or prior convictions are not crimes of violence | District court designated him a career offender; below-guideline variance resulted in same sentence | Even if designation were erroneous, any error was harmless because court would have imposed the same sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hurd, 785 F.3d 311 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Tamayo-Baez, 820 F.3d 308 (8th Cir. 2016) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (factors supporting reliability of a tip: eyewitness knowledge, contemporaneity, accountability)
- United States v. Roberts, 787 F.3d 1204 (8th Cir. 2015) (close temporal/geographic proximity can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (traffic-stop mission and limits on prolonging stops)
- United States v. Juvenile TK, 134 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 1998) (proximity to crime supports investigative stop)
- United States v. Gomez, 16 F.3d 254 (8th Cir. 1994) (ownership/permission relevant to standing to challenge vehicle searches)
- United States v. Muhammad, 58 F.3d 353 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant bears burden to establish reasonable expectation of privacy)