Suppression Ruling During Pretrial Has Preclusive Effect During Federal Civil Rights Suit

A motion to suppress ruling at pretrial precludes a later federal civil rights claim regarding a seizure because the Fourth Amendment violation was already resolved during the criminal proceeding

Nance v. Humane Soc'y of Pulaski Cty., 2016 BL 252098, 8th Cir., No. 15-3512, 8/4/16.

   The Eighth Circuit ruled that a couple cannot not sue in federal court under 43 U.S.C. § 1983 because a state’s court ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress evidence precluded their claim. During their criminal trial, the couple motioned to suppress evidence that was collected in an animal cruelty investigation. The trial court had a hearing and admitted the evidence, resolving the possibility of any Fourth Amendment claim that could be raised later. In their opinion, the circuit court rebutted any claim that the couple did not have an opportunity to fully litigate the validity of the seizure on an alternative argument. It held that any alternative argument should have been presented during the pretrial proceedings, and the failure to do so, now bars their civil rights claim on this issue.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nance_v_Humane_Socy_of_Pulaski_Cty_No_153512_2016_BL_252098_8th_C.

Suspect’s Conversation with Himself is Admissible in Court

Incriminating comments made in a police cruiser by a suspect speaking to himself, while being recorded, is not an interrogation and are admissible in court

United States v. Bailey, 2016 BL 253698, 8th Cir., No. 15-3591, 8/4/16.

    The Eighth Circuit ruled that comments made by a suspect while alone that were recorded on camera in a police cruiser are admissible in court. The police arrested the suspect after chasing him down when he fled a traffic stop. While alone in the car, he made an incriminating comment about the police finding his gun. In court, the defendant argued that these statements should be suppressed because they were made before he received his Miranda warnings and that he essentially was engaged in an interrogation. By being placed in the police cruiser with an active camera, the defendant contended that the police hoped or even expected him to make incriminating statements.

   The circuit court, however, disagreed with the defendant’s reasoning. Even with the police hoping that the defendant would incriminate himself on camera, the hope does not rise to an interrogation understood under Miranda jurisprudence. The court even noted that regular booking queries were stopped by the time the defendant was placed in the cruiser, further emphasizing that any formal interrogation or questioning had come to an end.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Bailey_No_153591_2016_BL_253698_8th_Cir_Aug_05_20.