United States of America v. Rodrick Mitchell

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3616
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rodrick Mitchell
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: September 22, 2023
Filed: November 6, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
A jury found Rodrick Mitchell guilty of being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1
1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
sentenced him to 120 months in prison. He appeals the denial of a pretrial motion
to suppress. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Around noon on July 9, 2020, Nikyra Moore—Mitchell’s girlfriend and
mother of his child—drove to the police station, visibly upset and crying, and told
Officer Timothy Princivalli that she had been in an altercation with Mitchell at a
hotel the night before. While he showered that morning, she left the hotel in the
rental car Mitchell had been driving and drove to the station. Moore said she feared
for the safety of herself and her child. She also told Officer Princivalli that Mitchell
was a convicted felon and had put a loaded firearm under the hood of the car. Officer
Princivalli checked the car’s VIN, confirming it was a rental and ran a computer
check, confirming Mitchell had a record of several physical altercations. Moore
asked Officer Princivalli to remove the firearm from the car so she could return it to
the rental company. He searched under the hood of the car, finding a 9 mm handgun
and a magazine with ammunition.
Before trial, Mitchell moved to suppress the firearm and ammunition found in
the car. The district court found that Officer Princivalli reasonably believed Moore
could consent to a search of the car and also had probable cause to search it under
the automobile exception.
Mitchell argues the district court erred by denying the motion to suppress.
This court reviews de novo whether there has been a Fourth Amendment violation.
United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 692 (8th Cir. 2019). See United States v. Short,
2 F.4th 1076, 1077 (8th Cir. 2021) (courts review de novo whether the automobile
exception applies). The government argues the search was valid because Moore had
authority to consent to it. This court need not decide this issue because the
automobile exception applies. “As long as the law enforcement officials have
probable cause, they may search an automobile without a warrant under the
Honorable Nannette A. Baker, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
automobile exception.” United States v. Fladten, 230 F.3d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir.
2000). “Probable cause exists when, given the totality of the circumstances, a
reasonable person could believe there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime would be found in a particular place.” Id.
Officer Princivalli had probable cause. Before the search, he learned Mitchell
was a convicted felon and had a firearm under the hood of his vehicle. It is unlawful
for any person who has “been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to possess a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1). These facts “are sufficient to warrant” Officer Princivalli “in the belief
that contraband or evidence of a crime” would be found. United States v. Payne,
119 F.3d 637, 642 (8th Cir. 1997).
Mitchell asserts there “was zero corroboration of any material part” of
Moore’s statements. But Officer Princivalli had no reason to find Moore’s
statements untrustworthy or unreliable. In fact, he verified several of them—the
vehicle was rented and Mitchell was violent—before the search. The district court
did not err in determining that the search was warranted under the automobile
exception.
* * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --