*1 334.01, to except puted pursuant tract in his control MINN.STAT. and are still possible may that the interest rate provides if resale becomes for any prior to the col- indebtedness shall be at the any legal resell them at rate pro- The net judgment. per year, lection of the unless the percent parties of six resale must be credited ceeds of such for a different rate in writing. contract judg- payment buyer Appellant’s regarding contentions to not resold. any goods ment entitles him are Leasing correct. ICC found by magistrate The facts as Co., Corp. Machinery v. Midwestern recovery requirements meet (Minn.1977), Minnesota N.W.2d Su price Appellant pay failed to price. held that preme prejudgment Court interest were identi goods when it was due. to computed according should be section contract, appellee presented fied to the 334.01, of percent. subd. at the rate six attempts to evidence of his unsuccessful interest, however, Postjudgment should be contention that he was Appellee’s resell. pursuant 1961(c)(2) to 28 computed U.S.C. § remedy is legal persuasive. awarded his Inc., Weitz (Supp.1983). Carpet, v. Mo-Kan equitable remedy specific perform (8th Cir.1983). Federal law Code’s ance and the Uniform Commercial provides judg for interest from date of identical, virtually for the price action floating ment at a rate determined judg appears the court’s to be a order yield of coupon Treasury price. ment for the provision “any judgment Bills. The covers in a civil case in district court.” recovered argues also Appellant Accordingly, portion Id. at 1386. magistrate abused his discretion in award magistrate’s judgment is reversed and re price because his com ing Schumann the for a of the prejudg manded determination price plaint did not action for the allege postjudgment ment and interest rates pur or cite the statute. Minnesota Schumann’s applicable suant contract, to statutes. complaint a breach of alleged damages, in his he asked for “an prayer for reasons, foregoing For the the magis- compensate amount for his loss necessary to judgment part trate’s is affirmed bargain.” Because a trial court must part. reversed and remanded in grant party the relief which a prevailing entitled, relief, can the court award such even has not it. party demanded 54(c);
FED.R.CIV.P. Charles Schmitt Co. Barrett, (8th Cir.1982); F.2d Modlin, Troutman America, Appellee, STATES of UNITED Cir.1965). Here, parties stipulated breach prior to trial and contract DANIELSON, Appellant. Albert John proceeded litigate damages issues. above, As stated the evidence adduced at America, Appellee, STATES of UNITED support trial for an award price. SKOWRONEK, Appellant. John Richard Interest 83-1459, Nos. 83-1460. Finally, contends that court appellant Appeals, United States Court erred in calculating amount of interest Eighth Circuit. damages. The states court’s memorandum Submitted Oct. 1983. computed pursuant interest was pro- Decided March 1984. MINN.STAT. 549.09. Section 549.09 vides that interest shall be postjudgment Rehearing Rehearing En Banc computed set Ad- rate Court 8,May Denied ministrator of the Minnesota for the year question. Appellant com- argues interest should have been *2 Smith,
Woods, Fuller, P.C. Shultz Muilenburg, Fuller, H. Thomas William P. S.D., Falls, appellants. for Sioux P. Atty., Bonnie Hogen, N. Philip Falls, S.D., Ulrich, Atty., Sioux Asst. U.S. appellee. for ROSS, and BOW- McMILLIAN Before MAN, Judges. Circuit ROSS, Judge. Circuit and John John Danielson appellants, Skowronek, charges on the were convicted robbery, U.S.C. aggravated (d); unregis- 2113(a) possession 5861(d); firearm, posses- 26 U.S.C. § tered number, a serial a firearm without sion of and, possession 5861(i); finally, 26 U.S.C. § in viola- a convicted felon of a firearm 1202(a)(1). app. tion of 18 U.S.C. jury in the United was tried to case for the District District Court ap- Dakota, Division.1 Southern South years to 25 were each sentenced pellants the bank convic- on imprisonment on imprisonment of 5 years tion and a total the various firearms the convictions served are to be charges. The sentences concurrently. evi- that certain argue arrest and
dence, a result of their seized as trial, sup- have been should introduced sup- was not the arrest bécause pressed affirm the cause. We by probable ported the district court. judgment of Judge, presided. Jones, District The Honorable John B. lips moved Facts though speaking his passenger window. November p.m., At 2:00 approximately decided to follow the auto- 1982, branch office of the Northwest- Grode passed branch Bank was robbed. The mobile. He Officer Lovro’s cruiser ern National parked Road in at 41st Marion which was on the shoulder of the office is located lane. Falls, northbound Officer Grode radioed South Dakota. A Sioux *3 shorter, or and asked him if seen suspects: two males 5'10" Officer Lovro he had the following the he and green possibly navy ski masks and automobile wearing pistol armed with a and sawed- whether in Officer Lovro’s it parkas, blue shotgun carrying description put a radio out off matched over scanner, was transmitted over the radio. Lovro it was replied Officer that bulletin Immediately following radio. this close and should checked out. Officer pulled William Grode and Lovro of James Lovro then out and Officer followed force, in traveling Falls Sioux Grode. cruisers, on Inter- separate positions took The vehicle until suspect’s traveled north northern Highway state to cover the it reached Renner Road exit where it from the escape city. route Officer Grode turned After traveling east. a short dis- cruiser from parked his about three miles (south) tance it turned into an area describ- on a in robbery scene crossover ed as an industrial complex. At this facing with the front median end Officer Grode advised radio communications lanes reserved for north bound traffic. attempt that he would the vehicle receiving buildings After information before it could enter an area with citizen, Hofer, Mr. police headquar- a Jacob and warehouses. He then on his turned ters two cars stating lights. radioed bulletin that cruiser’s red car might be involved in the One robbery.2 after Immediately the red were lights green as a “1971 described or 1972 just activated but before the car came Ford,” or as a full-sized dark blue up right sat in the Mercury. black 1974 1975 Thunderbird or the suspect’s front seat of Of- automobile. addition, green In one of li- the cars had stopped ficer got Grode out green cense plates. Shortly thereafter his cruiser with revolver drawn. Officer (which Ford South Dakota plates Lovro had also and exited his cruis- color) in green not was found abandoned. point. er He was armed with a A was then stated bulletin broadcast which gun. riot Officer Grode ordered the dark blue or black had the auto remain suspects approached still and green plates. moving from the rear. automobile While later, A few minutes heard approximately along the side car he p.m., 2:30 Officer Grode observed a dark radio scanner and saw two bundles Mercury Cougar blue of “middle seventies and some currency knit material vintage” (green) proceed- unzipped with Iowa for ski plates type used masks in an ing suspects northbound on Interstate The auto- out backpack. 29. were ordered searched, appeared occupied only by car, placed mobile to be formally driver, a white male. Officer testi- A search warrant for the Grode as the him fied that at a issued and exe- Cougar subsequently speed, trunk of con- moderate the driver turned cuted. The the automobile manages pulled parking Hofer blocks Jacob a motel three the automobiles into the motel lot, from branch bank Short- jumped on Marion Road. white male into and a ly Hofer, after he went to the bank to then drove on his Ford which off. Mr. and, closed, finding some it transact business bank, return from discovered the following police: About related parking lot and Ford abandoned the motel p.m. (as 1:30 he saw two described automobiles police with informa- called the this additional making adjacent infra) a U-turn in a lot tion. Approximately to the motel. five minutes later 417-18, shot- pistol sawed-off tained a loaded the bank currency contrast, from
gun. cause, taken Probable re itself. was found automobile facts and circumstances “sufficient quires believing prudent warrant a man matter, must decide initial As an had or was com petitioner committed ar- began. appellants the arrest when Ohio, supra, an offense.” Beck the moment began mitting the arrest gue that crusier’s flash- Grode activated the at 225. The more 379 U.S. at urges us ing lights. government standard of re rigorous until begin not conclude arrest did intrusive, full-scale “highly served * * the car out of ordered Wallraff, arrest, taken formally custody. into (8th Cir.1983). can at the outset be certain We 20 L.Ed.2d did not rise to mere automobile *4 permitted held that the fourth amendment arrest. United States v. the level on less persons certain limited seizures of Beardslee, 914, (8th Cir.1979); 609 F.2d 917 probable ques- than cause. The essential Stout, 866, v. 599 F.2d in was tion then before Court clear, Cir.1979). contrary It to is also in the whether the officer’s actions taken law, of the appellants’ interpretation unreasonable. course of seizure were the time the officers’ intentions at in whether the seizure determining And this determina- stop are irrelevant to our in- and search “unreasonable” Wright, tion. 565 F.2d officer’s quiry is a dual one—whether the 486, (8th Cir.1977) (all facts and justified inception, action was at its officer at the circumstances known to the it in reasonably whether was related made, stop actually was and not scope justified to the which circumstances merely apparent those at the time the in- in place. the interference the first formed, judged stop tent to was are to 19-20, 88 Id. S.Ct. at 1878-79. standard). objective an Further- against Putting the moment the aside for above, more, under the cited authorities justi of whether question the seizure approach could vehicle and the officers on inception, fied at its we will concentrate stop would not be considered an arrest. the second line of The determina inquiry. tion of when an crosses considering aspects sei- an arrest is of boundary becomes zure, plurality in the importance of wheth analysis critical Royer, of Florida 491, 460 U.S. probable arrest was supported by er the stated only A decision issue not cause. on this govern guidelines which must general determines facts are relevant inquiry. our Beck subsequent analysis, 379 U.S. predicate seizures on permitting 223, 225, 13 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. is short of suspicion Matthews, (1964), law enforcement interests warrant lim- (8th Cir.1979) facts and (only those security personal ited intrusion on the police up known circumstances to suspect. scope intrusion considered), of the but moment arrest are will to some extent with permitted vary the le also sets the standard under which circumstances particular facts and judged. of the officer’s gality actions much, however, This is each case. clear: investigatory stop officer An is valid if the investigative must be tem- detention Rea acting suspicion. on reasonable and last than is neces- porary longer no is suspicion “particular sonable defined as a sary purpose stop. to effectuate the objective suspecting ized and basis for methods em- Similarly, investigative particular person of criminal activi Cortez, intrusive ty.” United States ployed should be the least 449 U.S.
H47 reasonably verify means available or insure his safety, and conclude that it was reasonable. in a short dispel officer’s period of time. Id. at at 1924.
Id. S.Ct. at 1325. We too conclude that under the cir cumstances of this case the officers acted case, seizure in The duration of the reasonably and did not exceed the bounds Royer, unlike the detention issue in of an investigative detention. The very minute, or two quite short. Only real danger which these confronted officers outside, elapsed could have between the they approached perhaps is so time the cars came a halt and the appel apparent require as to little discussion. A lants were formally placed serious crime had been committed two investigative could not detention have men weapons. armed with In a car deadly accomplished the in a purpose fitting the suspects’ vehi shorter period of time. Cf. Florida v. Roy cle, man, occupied by one apparently er, supra, 103 1323. The S.Ct. at appears second man suddenly at the mo did not seek to question ment it stopped. these circum Under require nor way they request did stances the only response them spot to move from the at which the officers could take was exercise a great stop first Dunaway occurred. Cf. v. New care, degree of is in fact they what York, 200, 203, 2248, 2251, did. (1979) (where the suspect Having concluded actions of *5 home, was taken into at his custody trans Officers Grode and Lovro were within the station, ported detained, police and scope detention, of an investigative questioned interrogation room). in a small must stop decide if the initial of the sus In this case only might one factor remove pects’ justified. automobile was Officer the seizure from the of an investiga ambit Grode, at automobiles came to detention; tive the officers a (1) knew following: A robbery appellants weapons with their drawn. by had been two committed white males who were (2) armed. was Officers Grode and Lovro were of course committed only 3 miles and 30 minutes aware of the should their suspi- fact that from the time place sight and first confirmed, cions about the automobile be ing (3) of the suspect vehicle. This vehicle the occupants certainly would be armed generally fit the description automo shotgun a pistol. Under these bile reasonably suspected by police of pressing circumstances the officers’ method being robbery. (4) involved in the of investigation to that upheld is akin traveling automobile was on a route and in Williams, case of Adams v. U.S. a direction which the officers anticipated In Ad- the fleeing (5) take. Though robbers would ams a police officer, acting on a tip, ap- appeared occupied automobile to be proached an driven by automobile a man driver, male, solely by the a white thought to be officer armed. The asked the Grode saw him head turn his and move his suspect to get out of car. The suspect lips (6) speaking passenger. responded down by rolling the window. Immediately flashing lights after the were The officer through reached the window on, turned person suddenly up sat and grabbed a pistol loaded was lo- in the front seat. cated at waist. The In our facts these and circum stated: stances constitute a for a basis Under these the police- circumstances suspicion which immediately almost crossed reaching man’s action spot probable over the threshold into cause. the gun thought where was to be Collins, hidden the case of United denied, constituted designed (8th Cir.), a limited intrusion F.2d 79 cert. by cause. supported probable stop McGlynn, initial of upheld
court an escape suspected being of automobile Cir.1982). automobile three bank robbers. The reviewed carefully have We “light as a escape was described used in and find it to by appellants issue raised Cadillac,” the sus- while brown late model meritless. males. negro three pects were described as stopped police by The automobile McMILLIAN, Judge, specially Circuit 1969 Cadillac” gold
“white over brown male, concurring. black occupied which was one appellant stop Id. 83. The took Collins. that officers did not agree I ten minutes after and place approximately to arrest have place from the time away three miles they appellants’ car. the time of in Collins robbery. officer From the radio broadcasts interior consent to search the obtained just knew branch bank had re- the search automobile. Because males armed been robbed two white evidence, additional Collins was vealed no pistol shotgun, general with a and a immediately permitted proceed. Almost their cloth- description the robbers and subsequent initial release after the two descriptions and the cars that ing, Collins, additional the officer received robbery: in the bank possibly involved suspects that one of the information 1971 or 1972 Ford and 1974 or jacket. Collins wearing motorcycle a black full-sized, or black Thunder- dark blue wearing type jacket. On Mercury. officers also bird or again the officer basis of this information the green already knew that Ford had been arrested, Collins. stopped, promptly located in a lot and the dark both the initial upheld This court license plates. blue or black ear had Id. 83-84. subsequent arrest. facts reasonable suspicion; These establish In this case automobile however, than con- nothing more Collins, equivalent available either car or the dark blue nected *6 suspicious appearance the sudden robbery. or black car with the bank None suspect equates favorably employees of the bank could describe rob- information that one of the additional Hofer, car. Witness the man who getaway wearing a leather coat. bers was black in the motel lot had seen cars Furthermore, known to Of- the information and later saw the before the superior is to that available in ficer Grode car from bank at driving away in at least one as the number respect Collins immediately speed normal rate after car suspects in the was the same could the cars with the robbery, not connect These reported number of robbers. arrests provide a robbery. Another did by investigative stop, preceded definite between the rob- more connection justified inception and reasonable in and the car because saw bery police scan- which established that scope, away car from bank at speeding ner were in currency and bundles However, robbery. time of incrimina- highly This suspects’ possession. car already stopped officers police had evidence, with the infor- ting weighed when the information Fisher when mation available to officers police radio. was broadcast over the established clearly cars came probable cause to arrest. is question The crucial thus whether fairly can charac- police officers’ actions we must con- foregoing For the reasons is as an terized clearly trial err clude that the court did not reasonable suspi- on the basis of permissible investigative when it determined that 1, see 88 suspi- only, cion v. U.S. was made on detention a reasonable 1868, or as an cion, L.Ed.2d 889 and that arrest was S.Ct. subsequent officers because the police for which the lacked car is arrest blockaded or cause. The characteriza proper when the weapons). officers draw actions in tion officers’ turn Jackson, But see 652 F.2d upon significance should depends J., (Mansfield, at 252-55 dissenting); Unit officers’ approach attribute Beck, 497, ed States v. 598 F.2d weapons with drawn under the circum Cir.1979) (police force taxi off the stances of this case. This a difficult road and passengers surround without involving police The cases offi question. arrest); drawing guns; cars, approaches cers’ with or without Strickler, 378, (9th Cir.1974) 490 F.2d weapons, quite are not consistent and often (car officers; by police surrounded orders contrary results have been reached in cases given gunpoint; arrest). similar United involving facts. See Because I think that officers' 177, Ceballos, (2d Cir. actions, even the use of drawn 1981) (reviewing cases). present case involved, weapons was can be fairly charac- certainly does not involve a brief and mini terized as an investigatory stop which was mally intrusive between the po encounter upon based of criminal subjects investigation. lice and the activity, I concur. Royer, Florida v. See (1983) (airport Here, the investigatory stop). police offi flashing
cers the car red lights,
then with their weapons gunpoint
drawn and ordered
not move. The officers did not ap ask
pellants any questions. my opinion this kind of indistinguishable action is almost HICKEY, Appellant, Roland J. Nonetheless, from traditional I agree police officers’ use of force
(approaching weapons) the car with drawn SOLEM, Warden, Herman and Mark V. reasonably predicated upon the specific Meierhenry, Attorney General, State of facts known to officers and which Dakota, Appellees. South precautions: warranted such the occupants No. 83-1877. of the car were suspected armed bank rob Jackson, bers. See United of Appeals, States Court (2d Cir.) (gun drawn when Circuit. Eighth cert, robber), approaching armed bank de Submitted Feb. nied, 454 U.S. *7 594 (1981); Decided March Coades, Cir.1977) F.2d robbers; (armed attempted bank shots had fired);
been v. Diggs, (D.C.Cir.1975) (armed
robbers), denied, cert. See also Model of Pre-Arraignment
Code Procedure 110.- 1975)
2(3) (Proposed (officer Official Draft use
may reasonably such force as necessary, force,
short of deadly
vehicle); LaFave, 3 W. and Seizure Search 9.2(d), (1978 Supp.1984) (sug
gesting that an otherwise valid is not
inevitably merely rendered unreasonable