Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01009/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rickey Don Barnes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1009

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Rickey Don Barnes, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2004

Filed: September 20, 2004 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Police received a report that Rickey Don Barnes was shooting at some people

from his back yard. Two officers responded. People near Barnes’s house told the

officers that Barnes had been shooting a .22 rifle at them and had gone back inside

his house. The officers went to the back of Barnes’s home and saw him standing just

inside the storm door. The officers asked Barnes to step outside. One officer testified

Barnes motioned for the officers to step inside, and the other officer testified Barnes

“hollered” for them to enter the residence. After Barnes stepped back into a bedroom

of the house, the officers entered the house and again asked Barnes to step outside.

Barnes met the two officers on the back porch. One of the officers patted Barnes

Appellate Case: 04-1009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812893 
*

The Honorable R. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

-2-

down and explained why they were there. Barnes then said, “Come in here, I want

to show you something.” Barnes went back into the house, followed by the two

officers. Barnes went back into the bedroom and walked over to a dresser. One of

the officers stepped into the room. Barnes picked up a .22 caliber starter pistol and

gave it to the officer. Barnes said he had been threatened by a group of people and

fired the pistol to frighten them away. The officer told Barnes the witnesses reported

he had fired a rifle, and Barnes responded, “There’s not any more guns in this house,

you can look all you want to, I don’t own any guns.” Looking into the bedroom

through the crack between the door’s hinged side and the door frame, the other officer

saw the rifle propped up in the corner. The officer told the other officer he could see

a rifle, and the officers seized the gun. 

The Government later charged Barnes, a six-time felon, with being a felon in

possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Barnes filed a motion to suppress

the rifle, asserting he did not consent to the officers’ entry of his home or their search

for a gun. After the district court*

 denied Barnes’s motion to suppress, Barnes

conditionally pleaded guilty. Barnes now appeals the denial of his motion to

suppress, and we affirm.

On appeal, Barnes contends the testimony of the police officers was

inconsistent and incredible, and thus, the district court’s reliance on the officers’

testimony in finding Barnes consented to the search was clearly erroneous. Barnes

points to the testimony of his aunt, who arrived after the officers were already coming

into the house. According to Barnes’s aunt, the officers found the rifle in a second

bedroom and she did not hear the officers request consent to search. “‘Because the

district court is in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, its

determinations regarding credibility are “virtually unreviewable on appeal.”’” United

Appellate Case: 04-1009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812893 
-3-

States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoted cases omitted). We

conclude the district court’s decision to credit the officers’ testimony regarding

Barnes’s consent is not clearly erroneous. See id. Any inconsistencies in the officers’

testimony about the manner Barnes indicated the officers could enter his house the

first time, the history about Barnes’s dispute with his neighbors, the direction that the

bedroom door opened, and the timing of a third officer’s arrival, are minor and

immaterial to the issue of Barnes’s consent for the officers to enter his home the

second time and to look around for guns. Besides, the district court could properly

credit the officers’ testimony that one of them saw the rifle in plain view. See United

States v. Gillon, 348 F.3d 755, 759 (8th Cir. 2003). 

We thus affirm the denial of Barnes’s motion to suppress.

_________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1009 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/20/2004 Entry ID: 1812893