United States v. Steven Davis
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15186
8th Cir.2017Background
- In August 2014 undercover officers arrested Heinrichs and recovered four ounces of meth; Heinrichs gave a post‑Miranda statement identifying his supplier as "Steve" and provided a phone number, vehicle descriptions (white panel van, red Dodge pickup), and frequent purchases over ~1 year.
- DEA traced the phone number to Steven B. Davis at a South Omaha residence; agents observed the described vehicles and found meth residue and mail to Davis in garbage.
- Affidavit and an amended affidavit (adding a parolee roommate’s September 29 seizure of .9 g meth and her statement implicating Davis and the white van) supported a search warrant; agents executed the warrant on October 9, 2014, seizing ~1 oz meth, scales, cash (including serialized buy money), packaging, and a phone matching Heinrichs’s number.
- Davis was indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, released on GPS monitoring, absconded the day of a hearing and was recaptured 11 days later; a jury convicted him and he received 180 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Davis challenged denial of suppression (probable cause/staleness), admission of prior convictions and flight evidence, denial of mistrial for an officer’s unsolicited testimony about Davis’s post‑Miranda statement, denial of judgment of acquittal, and rejection of a buyer–seller jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for search warrant | Affidavit tied Heinrichs’s tip to Davis via phone tracing, vehicle sightings, trash with residue and mail, proximity to sale site, prior convictions, and later corroboration by Long — supporting a fair probability of evidence at the residence. | No specific link between Davis’s drug activity and the residence; information was stale and did not establish probable cause to search the home. | Warrant supported by probable cause under totality of circumstances; corroborating physical evidence and ongoing activity sufficed. |
| Staleness of warrant information | Ongoing narcotics operation and multiple corroborating acts from Aug–Sept 2014 made a 10‑day gap to execution nonfatal. | Too much time elapsed from Heinrichs’s August statements to October search; probable cause dissipated. | Information was not stale; continuous nature of alleged operation meant probable cause persisted. |
| Admission of prior convictions and flight (motions in limine) | Prior meth convictions relevant to intent/knowledge; flight probative of consciousness of guilt. | Prior convictions remote and prejudicial; flight occurred long after arrest and irrelevant to conspiracy formation. | District court did not abuse discretion: prior convictions admissible under Rule 404(b); flight admissible circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. |
| Motion for mistrial over agent’s testimony about Davis’s post‑Miranda statement | Government relied on other evidence; any surprise could be cured. | Unanticipated testimony that Davis identified his source (and withdrew cooperation) was prejudicial; violated discovery and undermined buyer–seller defense. | No mistrial: answer struck as nonresponsive, defendant waived curative instruction, and any remaining error harmless given substantial evidence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence (judgment of acquittal) | Government presented nine witnesses, exhibits, phone records, drug quantities and packaging indicating resale and ongoing relationship. | Key witness (Heinrichs) unreliable; insufficient proof Davis engaged in large‑quantity sales or conspiracy. | Evidence sufficient when viewed favorably to verdict; reasonable jury could find conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Buyer–seller jury instruction | N/A (gov’t opposed) | Requested instruction to distinguish simple buyer–seller from conspiracy; urged adoption of other circuits’ approach. | Rejected under Eighth Circuit precedent: multiple sales of resale quantities support submission on conspiracy; buyer–seller instruction inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Seidel, 677 F.3d 334 (8th Cir. 2012) (affidavit read in common‑sense totality to assess probable cause)
- United States v. Brackett, 846 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.) (review deference to issuing judge on probable cause)
- United States v. Colbert, 828 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2016) (staleness analysis in ongoing drug investigations)
- United States v. Horton, 756 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 2014) (Rule 404(b) inclusion; prior drug convictions relevant to knowledge and intent)
- United States v. Hankins, 931 F.2d 1256 (8th Cir. 1991) (admissibility of flight as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Conway, 754 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2014) (multiple sales of resale quantities sufficient to submit conspiracy to jury)
- United States v. Jackson, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)