Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03750/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03750-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jay D. Carter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Sarah W. Hays, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3750

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jay D. Carter, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2004

Filed: May 6, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jay D. Carter appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms

(two rifles), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). After the district

court1

 denied Carter’s motion to suppress firearms and ammunition obtained during

a warrantless search of his residence and testimony related to the seized evidence,

Carter entered a conditional plea of guilty to the firearms charge.

Appellate Case: 03-3750 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2004 Entry ID: 1764429 
-2-

Challenging the denial of his suppression motion, Carter argues that exigent

circumstances did not exist to justify the warrantless entry and search because officers

had no reason to believe that lives were in danger. He also contends that the record

does not clearly show whether the second rifle seized was in plain view, and that

probable cause did not exist to associate the rifle with criminal activity as the officers

had not yet learned Carter was a convicted felon. 

First, the officers saw Carter outside the door with a rifle, observed spent-large

caliber casings directly outside the back door, and learned the house was occupied.

Based on those facts, the officers were justified in entering and searching Carter's

residence without a warrant because the circumstances suggested to the officers that

the occupants were potentially in jeopardy. See United States v. Gill, 354 F.3d 963,

968-69 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Arcobasso, 882 F.2d 1304, 1305-07 (8th Cir.

1989). Second, the district court did not clearly err in crediting Officer Joshua

Closson’s testimony that he and other officers were searching for potential victims.

See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002). Third, Officer

Closson lawfully seized the first rifle, which was in plain view inside the back door

and which he reasonably suspected Carter had fired in violation of a city ordinance.

See United States v. Nichols, 344 F.3d 793, 799 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Finally,

it was permissible to seize the second rifle temporarily as a precaution to assure the

safety of those in the house, and to seize the rifle as evidence once officers learned

that Carter was a convicted felon. See United States v. Robinson, 756 F.2d 56, 60

(8th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3750 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2004 Entry ID: 1764429