U.S. v. Cloud

Decision Date18 February 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08-1972.,08-1972.
Citation594 F.3d 1042
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas Bernard CLOUD, Jr., Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
594 F.3d 1042
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Thomas Bernard CLOUD, Jr., Appellant.
No. 08-1972.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 14, 2008.
Filed: February 18, 2010.

[594 F.3d 1043]

John Charles Brink, I, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Erica MacDonald, AUSA, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.


Thomas Bernard Cloud, Jr., appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the District Court1 after a jury found Cloud guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. We affirm.

For his first issue on appeal, Cloud challenges the order of the District Court2 denying his motion to suppress the firearm in question, his custodial statement, and DNA evidence, arguing that they were all obtained as the result of a seizure that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. With respect to the denial of a suppression motion, we review the court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Pena-Ponce, 588 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir.2009). Cloud does not argue that any of the District Court's factual findings are clearly erroneous, so we recite the facts below as found by the court after the hearing on Cloud's suppression motion. See United States v. Sawyer, 588 F.3d 548, 553 (8th Cir.2009).

On the night of March 21, 2006, Itasca County, Minnesota, Deputy Sheriff Robert LeClair began following a Cadillac on Highway 46 after noticing that the car had no license plates. LeClair followed the car for two miles and watched it cross the center and fog lines several times. At that point, he stopped the car for those traffic violations, thinking that the driver could be impaired by drugs or alcohol. Upon approaching the car, LeClair did see a temporary license plate in the back window of the Cadillac. The deputy asked the three occupants—the female driver, the male front-seat passenger, and the female back-seat passenger—for identification. None

594 F.3d 1044

was able to produce identification, but each gave LeClair a name and date of birth. The male passenger, who turned out to be Cloud, gave the name Kristopher Fisher. He appeared nervous and did not make eye contact with LeClair, even when speaking directly to him.

LeClair called dispatch with the information he had been given. The identification information for the two women was valid, with no outstanding warrants for either. The name Kristopher Fisher, however, "came back not on file in the State of Minnesota." Hr'g Tr. at 21. LeClair then asked Cloud to step out of the car so that he could double-check the information Cloud had given; Cloud complied. Upon further inquiry, LeClair learned from a "very nervous" Cloud that Kristopher was spelled with a K and that his middle name was spelled Leigh. Id. at 23. At about that time, ten minutes into the stop, dispatch advised LeClair that the spelling of the name had been corrected and the records located, and Kristopher Fisher had two outstanding warrants. LeClair agreed to take Cloud about ten miles to Cloud's home in Inger to get the $630 bail money to satisfy the warrants, after which Cloud would be released. The deputy handcuffed Cloud and put him in the back seat of the patrol vehicle. LeClair then approached the passenger side of the Cadillac and opened the front door to tell the women what was happening, and he saw a gun partially under the front passenger seat. He grabbed the gun, ordered the women out of the car, and handcuffed them. Soon after, Deputy Darin Shevich arrived on the scene. After the deputies were satisfied that neither of the women knew about the gun, the women were released, and LeClair transported Cloud to the nearest jail in Grand Rapids. About thirty minutes had passed since the Cadillac was first stopped.

In an interrogation room at the jail, LeClair read Cloud his Miranda3 rights and tape-recorded a brief interview with the suspect. At the hearing on Cloud's pretrial motions, LeClair testified that Cloud was twenty-six years old at the time of the interview and that he appeared to be unimpaired and of normal intelligence. Id. at 37. During the interview, Cloud denied any knowledge of the firearm found in the Cadillac. The next day, pursuant to a warrant, the authorities got fingerprints, palm prints, and DNA samples from Cloud. They eventually determined that he was not Kristopher Fisher at all, but Thomas Bernard Cloud, Jr. The print and DNA evidence were admitted at trial to connect Cloud to the firearm that was retrieved from the Cadillac.

Cloud does not question the legality of the initial traffic stop, but argues that the stop became an unconstitutional seizure when the identification information Cloud gave LeClair came back "not on file." He contends that the deputy's further questioning of him at that point was unlawful, and but for the extended seizure, the gun would not have been discovered, the custodial statement would not have been taken, and the warrant for DNA samples would not have been issued.

After a lawful traffic stop, an officer may complete routine tasks, which may include asking a passenger for identification and running a computer check if the passenger consents to the request for identification. See United States v. Slater, 411 F.3d 1003, 1006 (8th Cir.2005). "A request to see identification is not a seizure, `as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their request[ ] is required.'" United States v. Carpenter, 462 F.3d 981, 985 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429,

594 F.3d 1045

435, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (alteration by the Court in Carpenter)), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1343, 127 S.Ct. 2029 (2007). Cloud points to nothing in the record suggesting that he was compelled to give LeClair his name and date of birth. Likewise, LeClair did not violate Cloud's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • United States v. Cowan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 11, 2012
    ...“so we recite the facts below as found by the [district] court after the hearing on [Cowan's] suppression motion.” United States v. Cloud, 594 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.2010). Based upon information from a confidential informant, a controlled purchase of crack cocaine, and surveillance, poli......
  • United States v. Yorgensen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • December 7, 2015
    ...request for an attorney is clear and unambiguous.” United States v. Mohr , 772 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir.2014) ; United States v. Cloud , 594 F.3d 1042, 1046 (8th Cir.2010) ; United States v. Kelly , 329 F.3d 624, 630 (8th Cir.2003). Police are permitted to ask clarifying questions if there ......
  • United States v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • September 17, 2021
    ...Trooper Christopherson was justified in prolonging the traffic stop in order to confirm Defendant's identity. See United States v. Cloud, 594 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th Cir. 2010) (“a lawful detention may be prolonged for a reasonable time without violating the Fourth Amendment if complications a......
  • United States v. Franco-Martinez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • August 29, 2011
    ... ... Cf. , United States v. Cloud , 594 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th Cir. 2010)("a lawful detention may be prolonged for a reasonable time without violating the Fourth Amendment if ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT