Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03260/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03260-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Modestas Taylor
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3260

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Modestas Taylor, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2005

Filed: October 20, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us for the third time. The government charged Modestas

Taylor with possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base

seized during a police search of Taylor’s hotel room. This appeal arises from Taylor's

motion to suppress statements he made to police and evidence seized during a search

of his hotel room.

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, adopted by the

district court, recommending that the evidence and statements be suppressed because:

(1) Taylor’s consent to the search resulted from an unlawful detention, and (2) the

statements were made when Taylor was in custody and before the police had read him

Appellate Case: 04-3260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2005 Entry ID: 1965393
-2-

his Miranda rights. On appeal, this court remanded for a determination of whether the

police legally entered the hotel room after knocking on the door and for explicit

credibility determinations to determine, in detail, the circumstances of the encounter

in the hotel room.

On remand, although Taylor maintained that the police barged into his hotel

room, the district judge determined that Taylor acquiesced to the police officer's

request to come in. The district court did not make conclusions of law.

This court remanded for the district court to enter conclusions of law and an

order consistent with its findings. Based on the new factual findings and credibility

determinations, the district court concluded that the interview was not custodial and

the officers were not required to read the Miranda warnings. Reversing its initial

ruling, the district court ordered that the motions to suppress be denied. Because the

district court has reversed its initial order, the government's appeal from that order is

now moot.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2005 Entry ID: 1965393