United States of America v. Komboor Gatluak Gatnoor, also known as Komboor G. Gatnoor

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2052
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Komboor Gatluak Gatnoor, also known as Komboor G. Gatnoor
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Southern
____________
Submitted: April 30, 2026
Filed: May 5, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Komboor Gatnoor appeals after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession
of a firearm and the district court1 sentenced him to 6 months in prison and 3 years
1The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of
South Dakota.

-- 1 of 3 --

of supervised release. On appeal, Gatnoor challenges the denial of his motion to
suppress the firearm. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments
on appeal, we affirm. See United States v. Holly, 983 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 2020)
(in reviewing denial of a motion to suppress, district court’s findings of fact are
reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo).
The evidence presented at the suppression hearing shows that Police Officers
Ball and Greisiger, who were in the area of a bar due to an increase in crime, heard
a bottle hit the ground, and when they turned around, they observed a vehicle near the
bottle with its front passenger window rolled down, and no pedestrians or other
vehicles were near the bottle’s location. The officers approached the vehicle and
observed Gatnoor seated on the front passenger side. When Gatnoor exited the
vehicle, Ball noticed a bulge in Gatnoor’s front waistband. Believing the bulge to be
a firearm, Ball asked Gatnoor to turn toward the car, so he could conduct a pat-down
search. At that point, Gatnoor fled the scene, and was immediately apprehended by
police.
Gatnoor contends police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him because
they did not see him throw the bottle out of the car and that the firearm should
therefore have been suppressed. However, we conclude, based on the facts adduced
at the suppression hearing, that the totality of the circumstances indicate the police
had reasonable suspicion to believe Gatnoor violated state littering laws and thus to
stop the vehicle. See United States v. Roberts, 787 F.3d 1204, 1209 (8th Cir. 2015)
(police officer may conduct investigative stop if there is reasonable suspicion
supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot; reasonable
suspicion requires more than a mere hunch, but less than probable cause or
preponderance of the evidence); United States v. Martinez-Cortes, 566 F.3d 767, 769
(8th Cir. 2009) (in making reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts
must look to totality of circumstances); see also Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249,
257 n.3 (2007) (police may stop a car solely to investigate passenger’s conduct,
including violation of littering ordinance). We further conclude that, in any event,
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Gatnoor’s decision to flee the scene provided an independent basis to detain him. See
United States v. Dawdy, 46 F.3d 1427, 1431 (8th Cir. 1995) (even assuming initial
stop and arrest were invalid, resistance provided independent grounds for arrest, and
evidence discovered in subsequent search of defendant’s person was admissible).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --