United States of America v. Kyle G. Ashmore

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2641
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kyle G. Ashmore
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: March 15, 2024
Filed: July 12, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ERICKSON and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kyle Ashmore was convicted of several gun and drug charges after a police
officer searched his car and found a pistol with destroyed serial numbers,
psychedelic mushrooms, opioid pills, cocaine, and LSD. Ashmore moved to

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
suppress this evidence, arguing that it was fruit of an unconstitutional seizure. The
district court1 denied the motion, and we affirm.
Officer Jonathan Meyer was on patrol around 3:30 a.m. when he saw Ashmore
and a female passenger parked behind a hotel just off the interstate. The car had
paper plates and was backed into a remote space facing a U-Haul rental facility.
Ashmore was reclined in the driver’s seat with his eyes closed while the woman
looked out the window. Officer Meyer thought the situation looked suspicious, so
he blocked the two in with his squad car and started to approach on foot. Ashmore
came to, and he and his companion quickly tried to get out of the car. Officer Meyer
ordered them to stay inside and close the doors, but Ashmore’s remained slightly
ajar. In the tray of the interior door handle, Officer Meyer saw a small bag of what
looked like marijuana. He removed Ashmore and the woman from the car, searched
it, and found the gun and drugs.
Ashmore moved to suppress. He argued that Officer Meyer seized him by
blocking his exit and that he lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. See United
States v. Tuley, 161 F.3d 513, 515 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). The court disagreed,
finding that the officer had an “objective and particularized basis” to seize Ashmore.
United States v. LaGrange, 981 F.3d 1119, 1121 (8th Cir. 2020). We review the
court’s findings for clear error and its denial of the suppression motion de novo. Id.
Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, an officer may conduct an
investigatory stop if he has “a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts
that criminal activity ‘may be afoot.’” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7
(1989) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). He is entitled to draw
“specific reasonable inferences . . . from the facts in light of his experience,” but in
the end, he must have more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or
‘hunch.’” Terry, 392 U.S. at 27.
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Officer Meyer encountered Ashmore under circumstances that reasonably
raised his suspicions. He knew that the area around the hotel was prone to crime,
especially between 3:00 and 5:00 a.m. Over the years, he had responded to reports
of suspicious or stolen cars at the hotel and others nearby, to break-ins around the
U-Haul, and to a handful of overdoses behind the wheel. He also knew that hotels
near interstates are hotbeds for criminal activity like narcotics and sex trafficking.
And he noticed that criminals involved in such activity often drive stolen cars with
paper plates and try to evade police by parking behind hotels.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, Officer Meyer had the “minimal
level of objective justification” necessary to stop Ashmore. Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7
(citation omitted). Based on the position of the car and the early morning hour, he
thought Ashmore and his passenger might have been planning to break into the U-
Haul or acting as a getaway car. Their postures also suggested that the woman was
performing sex acts on Ashmore. And if not that, Ashmore’s position lying down
with his eyes closed raised concern that he was under the influence of narcotics and
either needed help or was a threat to others if he drove away.
Ashmore resists this commonsense conclusion. He says that there was no
evidence that he committed a crime and that he was simply waiting to check into the
hotel. But reasonable suspicion requires “considerably less than proof of
wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence,” id., and a finding that it exists
“need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct,” United States v. Arvizu, 534
U.S. 266, 277 (2002).
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --