United States v. Adam Vannoy

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2676
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Adam Stuart Vannoy
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: May 12, 2023
Filed: July 21, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Adam Vannoy conditionally pleaded guilty to a firearm offense after a traffic
stop. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2). Although he thinks the stop violated
the Fourth Amendment, we agree with the district court1 that it did not.
A motorist called 911 to report that a white Nissan pickup truck with a
“NOHATE” license plate was driving erratically. It had tailgated him, sped up and
slowed down, and twice passed him at around 120 miles per hour. A Nebraska State
Patrol officer soon spotted the truck, which “[a]lmost immediately” slowed down
and tried to enter a closed weigh station. The officer had seen enough and pulled it
over. During the stop, he saw Vannoy with “some marijuana[] [and] a large ‘bong’
in the front seat.” A later search uncovered firearms and an unregistered silencer.
The legality of the stop became a key issue. For a traffic stop like this one,
reasonable suspicion must be present. See United States v. Gonzalez-Carmona, 35
F.4th 636, 640 (8th Cir. 2022). We review the legal conclusions underlying the
denial of a motion to suppress de novo. See id.Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had “reasonable suspicion”
to believe “that a traffic violation ha[d] occurred,” United States v. Washington, 455
F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir. 2006), and that there was an “ongoing” threat, Navarette v.
California, 572 U.S. 393, 401 (2014). After all, he knew that the 911 caller had
described highly erratic driving, which suggested that the driver might be impaired.
See id. at 401–02. The tip also had all the hallmarks of “reliability”: the caller
identified himself by “name and telephone number” and gave a detailed,
“contemporaneous” account based on “eyewitness knowledge.” United States v.
Mosley, 878 F.3d 246, 253 (8th Cir. 2017); see Navarette, 572 U.S. at 397–99. The
officer then confirmed several key facts and saw some erratic driving himself. See
Navarette, 572 U.S. at 399–400. By that point, there was more than enough to justify
1
The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Cheryl R.
Zwart, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.
-2-
the stop. See United States v. Wheat, 278 F.3d 722, 731, 735 (8th Cir. 2001); see
also Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 331–32 (1990).
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-3-