United States v. Banks

9 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Quinones

    8:23-CR-101 (D. Neb. Sep. 5, 2024)

    Pappas, 452 F.3d at 771. “An officer's observance of a traffic violation, no matter how minor, gives the officer probable cause to initiate a stop.” United States v. Banks, 43 F.4th 912, 916 (8th Cir. 2022) (citing United States v. Cox, 992 F.3d 706, 709 (8th Cir. 2021)).

  2. United States v. Jiles

    8:23-CR-98 (D. Neb. Feb. 29, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    . “An officer's observance of a traffic violation, no matter how minor, gives the officer probable cause to initiate a stop.” United States v. Banks, 43 F.4th 912, 916 (8th Cir. 2022) (citing United States v. Cox, 992 F.3d 706, 709 (8th Cir. 2021)).

  3. United States v. Lebeau

    76 F.4th 1102 (8th Cir. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Banks, 43 F.4th 912, 917 (8th Cir. 2022).

  4. United States v. Patterson

    68 F.4th 402 (8th Cir. 2023)   Cited 19 times
    Finding a challenge to a video recording of the defendant referencing firearms made a few months before the charged offenses went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility

    We review a district court's evidentiary rulings, including its decisions on motions in limine, for abuse of discretion. Finley, 56 F.4th at 1166-67 (quoting United States v. Banks, 43 F.4th 912, 917 (8th Cir. 2022)). Evidentiary rulings implicating constitutional rights are reviewed de novo.

  5. United States v. Finley

    56 F.4th 1159 (8th Cir. 2023)   Cited 13 times
    In United States v. Finley, 56 F.4th 1159 (8th Cir. 2023), Finley presented a similar argument maintaining the officers were in plain clothes, did not yell police, and although they were wearing tactical vests containing a police label, the vests were obscured by the raised firearms.

    "We review a district court's evidentiary rulings, including its decision to [grant] a motion in limine , for abuse of discretion." United States v. Banks, 43 F.4th 912, 917 (8th Cir. 2022).

  6. Nielson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.

    8:23CV21 (D. Neb. Oct. 10, 2024)

    The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “‘foundation' is simply a loose term for preliminary questions designed to establish that evidence is admissible.” United States v. Banks, 43 F.4th 912, 918 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting A.I. Credit Corp. v. Legion Ins. Co., 265 F.3d 630, 637 (7th Cir. 2001)).

  7. United States v. Hammonds

    Criminal Action 21-256 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2023)

    Finally, Defendant seeks to preclude the introduction of still shots from videos, and pictures, depicting him smoking marijuana in a period shortly before his arrest. Materially identical evidence, and arguments for exclusion, were addressed in U.S. v. Banks, 43 F.4th 912 (8th Cir. 2022), and the Circuit Court affirmed the trial court's admission of the evidence. See id. at 917-18.

  8. Cain v. State

    No. 23-0120 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2024)

    They're, I assume, worried that they're going to be robbed by either a user that they sell to or maybe someone else that's selling." See United States v. Riccio, 340 Fed.Appx. 784, 786-87 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding a reasonable jury could infer the defendant constructively possessed a firearm in his half-brother's bedroom because the gun was used to further the brothers' drug trafficking); United States v. Banks, 43 F.4th 912, 919 (8th Cir. 2022) (noting a reasonable jury could have found the defendant, who was a passenger in a rental car littered with drugs, had joint constructive possession of firearms in the car because he had shared dominion over the car with the driver for the duration of their trip and made anxious statements during the search).

  9. Ortiz v. Dep't of Corr.

    368 So. 3d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)

    The law does not require the use of marijuana to be contemporaneous to the possession of a firearm. United States v. Banks , 43 F.4th 912, 917 (8th Cir. 2022). It requires the unlawful use to have occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct or that the person has used the drug for an extended period.