Case Law United States v. White

United States v. White

Document Cited Authorities (2) Cited in (9) Related

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, argued (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

J. Benton Hurst, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, argued (Teresa A. Moore, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

KOBES, Circuit Judge.

After the district court1 denied his motion to suppress, Lamont White pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). White appeals the denial of his motion. We affirm.

I.

The Kansas City Police Department received an anonymous call reporting suspicious activity. The caller said that two people—a woman in a damaged black Cadillac and a man with dreadlocks in a blue sedan—were parked nearby and had drugs and guns. Sergeant Simons, who was familiar with the area and the woman in the Cadillac, responded to the call. When he arrived, he saw the blue sedan with its hood up and a man sitting in the front seat. The man, later identified as White, got out of the car when he saw Simons and started tinkering with the engine. Simons approached, asked White if everything was okay, and then asked if he could frisk White. White agreed.

While Simons was frisking White, Sergeant Bryant arrived. Because the caller reported that there were guns, Bryant looked through the window of the car to see if there was a weapon inside. Instead, he saw a bag of crack cocaine in the cupholder of the center console. Bryant opened the door, but didn't immediately grab the drugs because he wasn't wearing gloves and didn't want to disturb the evidence. He signaled for Simons to arrest White, but White fled. During the chase, Bryant radioed other officers and instructed them to secure the drugs, saying "[u]nderneath the cup there should be a nice bag of crack, I think." After catching White, officers found a gun in the car and charged him with possessing a firearm as a felon.

White filed a motion to suppress the gun, claiming that the search of his car was unconstitutional. The Government opposed the motion, arguing that Sergeant Bryant saw the drugs in plain view, which, along with the 911 call and White's flight, provided probable cause. Bryant testified at the suppression hearing that he saw the drugs in the cupholder of the center console and "[t]here was some paperwork and miscellaneous items underneath it, which raised it up basically above the cupholder." This contradicted his recorded radio call saying that the drugs were "[u]nderneath the cup." When pressed on the inconsistency, Bryant could not explain it. But he reiterated that the drugs were in plain view.

The magistrate judge2 found that the drugs were in plain view and recommended denying the motion to suppress. White filed an objection, claiming that the magistrate judge failed to address the inconsistency between Bryant's testimony and the recording. The district court adopted the report and recommendation and denied White's motion. White conditionally pleaded guilty and now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress.

II.

We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo , and the district...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas – 2023
United States v. Preston
"... ... approximately 9:40 p.m. on November 23, 2019, Detective ... Jeremy Crosby and Officer Christopher Sweeney with the Pine ... Bluff Police Department (“PBPD”) were driving ... south on Camden Road in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. They saw a ... white Dodge Charger move from the left lane into the right ... lane and almost immediately make a right-hand turn. Detective ... Crosby activated his blue lights, and the Charger fled ... Arkansas State Police (“ASP”) Trooper Shane ... Caviness, who was in a separate vehicle ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2022
United States v. Sisco
"..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2022
United States v. Mitchell
"...the finding, the evidence as a whole leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that the finding is a mistake." United States v. White , 41 F.4th 1036, 1038 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Holly , 983 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 2020) ). The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
United States v. Crawford
"..."We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo, and the district court's factual findings for clear error." United States v. White, 41 F.4th 1036, 1038 (8th Cir. 2022). We begin with the text of the Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
United States v. Sanford
"...the photographs, video footage, and testimony, we see no basis for overturning the district court's findings. See United States v. White, 41 F.4th 1036, 1038 (8th Cir. 2022) ("We will reverse a finding of fact for clear error only if, despite evidence supporting the finding, the evidence as..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas – 2023
United States v. Preston
"... ... approximately 9:40 p.m. on November 23, 2019, Detective ... Jeremy Crosby and Officer Christopher Sweeney with the Pine ... Bluff Police Department (“PBPD”) were driving ... south on Camden Road in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. They saw a ... white Dodge Charger move from the left lane into the right ... lane and almost immediately make a right-hand turn. Detective ... Crosby activated his blue lights, and the Charger fled ... Arkansas State Police (“ASP”) Trooper Shane ... Caviness, who was in a separate vehicle ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2022
United States v. Sisco
"..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2022
United States v. Mitchell
"...the finding, the evidence as a whole leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that the finding is a mistake." United States v. White , 41 F.4th 1036, 1038 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Holly , 983 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 2020) ). The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
United States v. Crawford
"..."We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo, and the district court's factual findings for clear error." United States v. White, 41 F.4th 1036, 1038 (8th Cir. 2022). We begin with the text of the Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit – 2024
United States v. Sanford
"...the photographs, video footage, and testimony, we see no basis for overturning the district court's findings. See United States v. White, 41 F.4th 1036, 1038 (8th Cir. 2022) ("We will reverse a finding of fact for clear error only if, despite evidence supporting the finding, the evidence as..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex