United States v. Allen

43 F.4th 901

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.David Leroy ALLEN, Defendant - Appellant

No. 21-3060

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 13, 2022

Filed: August 9, 2022

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant and appeared on the appellant brief was Gina Messamer, of Des Moines, IA.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee and appeared on the appellee brief was Jonathan Louis Holscher, AUSA, of Des Moines, IA. The following attorney appeared on the appellee brief; Mallory E. Weiser, AUSA, of Des Moines, IA.

Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

David Leroy Allen was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a vehicle search. The district court¹ denied the motion. Mr. Allen proceeded to trial, where a jury found him guilty. He appeals and raises four arguments: (1) the district court should have granted his motion to suppress; (2) the district court should have admitted impeachment evidence; (3) the district court should have given additional jury instructions; and (4) the evidence was not sufficient to convict. We affirm.

I.

Just after midnight on November 28, 2019, Officer Brandon Holtan was patrolling alone in his usual patrol area, the fairgrounds neighborhood of Des Moines. Officer Holtan testified at the suppression hearing about his observations that evening and the inferences he drew from those observations. Based on his experience, Officer Holtan believed the fairgrounds neighborhood had a significant drug problem. He had received specific information that an individual was selling drugs out of a residence at 511 East 27th Street.

At approximately 12:48 a.m., Officer Holtan drove down East 27th Street and came to the residence at 511 East 27th Street. When Officer Holtan arrived, he saw a truck parked on the street in front of the house. Mr. Allen was standing outside the truck speaking to the driver. When Mr. Allen saw Officer Holtan, Mr. Allen "darted" away from the truck. Officer Holtan believed he had just observed a drug deal.

Mr. Allen entered the front passenger's side of an Altima parked in the driveway of the residence. The Altima was parked over the sidewalk, in violation of Iowa Code § 321.358 and Des Moines Code of Ordinances § 114-358. Brittney Pinckney sat in the driver's seat. Before Officer Holtan got out of his car, he observed Mr. Allen make "furtive" movements—Mr. Allen leaned forward at the waist and reached down and to his left, towards the dashboard or the glove compartment in a way that Officer Holtan believed was consistent with hiding contraband.

Officer Holtan exited his vehicle and approached the passenger's side of the Altima. As he approached, Mr. Allen opened the door and held his hands up. Mr. Allen showed Officer Holtan a bottle of vodka and said that he had been drinking with his friends. As Officer Holtan spoke to Mr. Allen, three individuals exited the truck and approached the Altima. They told Officer Holtan they had been hanging out and drinking. Officer Holtan asked for each of their names. Officer Holtan recognized the driver's name as an individual suspected of selling drugs out of the residence. Officer Holtan told the three people who had been in the truck that they were free to leave. They then left.

After the truck passengers left, Mr. Allen asked if he could get out of the car. Officer Holtan thought this was suspicious because, during traffic stops, people normally stay in the vehicle until an officer directs them to exit. He thought that when people ask to exit the vehicle, it is a sign they are trying to distance themselves from something inside of it. Officer Holtan told Mr. Allen he could exit and instructed him to put his hands behind his back so Officer Holtan could handcuff him. As Officer Holtan was handcuffing Mr. Allen, he asked Mr. Allen and Ms. Pinckney what Mr. Allen had hidden under the seat. Mr. Allen stated that he had not hidden anything and that he had just been looking for his cigarettes. He was holding a pack of cigarettes when he was handcuffed. Mr. Allen asked Ms. Pinckney if she had called the police on him. Officer Holtan thought this question was suspicious because it is not something that people usually discuss while officers are present.

Officer Holtan escorted Mr. Allen to a police vehicle and told him he was being detained because of an open container violation. When Officer Holtan asked for Mr. Allen's name, Mr. Allen stated that Officer Holtan should know him from a recent police raid at the residence. Mr. Allen also stated that he had case numbers in his pocket. Although Officer Holtan asked multiple times what was hidden in the car, Mr. Allen asserted he did not know about any contraband except the alcohol. Anything else in the vehicle, he said, belonged to Ms. Pinckney.

As Officer Holtan handcuffed Mr. Allen, Officer Jordan Ulin arrived. While Officer Holtan escorted Mr. Allen to one police vehicle, Officer Ulin escorted Ms. Pinckney to the other vehicle and spoke to her. Once they were secured in separate cars, Officers Holtan and Ulin began to search the Altima. Officer Holtan told Officer Ulin the Altima was parked over the sidewalk and there were open containers inside it. Officer Holtan informed Officer Ulin that "this house is a threat" and that Mr. Allen had been speaking to people inside the truck when he spotted Officer Holtan and "darted" back to the Altima. During this initial search, the officers found several bottles of alcohol, but they did not find any other contraband. Eventually, Officer Holtan asked Officer Ulin to keep searching while Officer Holtan went to speak with Ms. Pinckney. Specifically, Officer Holtan told him to keep looking for open containers and to make sure that he was only looking in spots where a "one-ounce shooter" could be hidden. Officer Holtan did not tell Officer Ulin to look for a weapon or evidence of a drug transaction.

Officer Holtan then went to speak with Ms. Pinckney. He told Ms. Pinckney that Mr. Allen had stated that any contraband in the car belonged to her. Ms. Pinckney then told Officer Holtan that there was a gun belonging to Mr. Allen in the car. She explained that Mr. Allen had gotten into a fight. Concerned for his safety, Mr. Allen asked Ms. Pinckney to drive him to the south side of Des Moines, where he picked up a gun. Mr. Allen had the gun when they arrived at the residence. When Mr. Allen saw Officer Holtan and returned to the Altima, he shuffled around because he was hiding the gun. Eventually, Ms. Pinckney explained that the gun was hidden behind a panel on the passenger's side wall of the dashboard.

With Ms. Pinckney's consent, Officer Holtan searched the Altima for a firearm. He found a gun exactly where Ms. Pinckney stated it would be, along with a plastic container of ammunition. The gun was positioned so that the barrel was pointed toward the driver's side of the vehicle. Officer Holtan believed that this position was consistent with how the gun would be arranged if a person in the passenger's seat held it by the grip and placed it in the compartment.

Officer Holtan returned to his vehicle to speak to Mr. Allen. After Officer Holtan read Mr. Allen his Miranda ² rights, Mr. Allen stated that the gun was not his but that he should have one because he was scared for his life. Mr. Allen told Officer Holtan the gun "was there to protect me but it wasn't mine." Eventually, Mr. Allen decided he was willing to speak to Officer Holtan but he was not willing to do so in front of the residence. Officer Holtan drove Mr. Allen to another location and they spoke further. Mr. Allen stated that the gun "wasn't mine but I wanted to protect myself," that he "had brought it," and that he "knew about it."

Several hours later, at approximately 4:30 in the morning, Investigator Brian Buck interviewed Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen told Investigator Buck that Ms. Pinckney had handed him the gun as he got into the car, and he hid it for her. He admitted he had touched the gun and his DNA would be on it.

II.

Mr. Allen first argues that the district court erred because it denied his motion to suppress the firearm. Mr. Allen argues that the officers impermissibly extended the traffic stop by searching the inside of the car without probable cause.

A.

In an appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Davis, 943 F.3d 1129, 1132 (8th Cir. 2019).

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. A search of a vehicle may violate a passenger's Fourth Amendment rights if an unreasonable seizure of the passenger caused the search. Davis, 943 F.3d at 1132. A traffic stop is a reasonable seizure if it is "supported by either reasonable suspicion or probable cause." United States v. Soderman, 983 F.3d 369, 374 (8th Cir. 2020). Once a vehicle is stopped based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, officers may continue the stop only for the time necessary "to attend to the stop's ‘mission’ and ‘related safety concerns.’ " Id. (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015) ). Thus, officers may continue the stop while they complete tasks related to the stop, such as checking the vehicle's registration and insurance, checking the occupants’ names and criminal histories, preparing the citation, and asking routine questions. United States v. Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d 407, 415 (8th Cir. 2017).

Generally, a valid traffic stop becomes an unreasonable seizure if the officers extend the stop beyond the time necessary to complete the stop's mission. Soderman, 983 F.3d at 374. The officers may, however, extend the stop if they develop reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Davis, 943...