# United States v. Gregory B. Bloomfield, Also Known as Earl Marcum Johnson

> Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · November 16, 1994 · 40 F.3d 910

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487531

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gregory B. BLOOMFIELD, Also Known as Earl Marcum Johnson, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 16, 1994
- **Citations:** 40 F.3d 910; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 32273; 1994 WL 643872
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Arnold
- **Judges:** Arnold, Bright, McMillian, Fagg, Bowman, Wollman, Magill, Beam, Loken, Hansen, Memillian
- **Cited by:** 343 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487531

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding remand unnecessary and that this court will uphold a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress despite lack of factual findings if, on review of the record, it finds that “any reasonable view of the evidence” supports the district court’s decision
- holding the “reasonable investigation” of a traffic stop “includes asking for the driver’s license and registration, requesting that the driver sit in the patrol car, and asking the driver about his destination and purpose”
- stating that any traffic violation, “however minor,” provides probable cause for a stop, and, if a traffic violation has occurred, an officer’s underlying motivations will not render the stop pretextual
- holding that remand is unnecessary where the district court states its legal basis for denying the motion to suppress on the record and a reasonable view of the evidence supports its decision
- holding that the amount of time lapsed did not render the search unreasonable given the absence of evidence indicating that the defendant was handcuffed or confined in a police car

## Opinion text

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I join part II of Judge McMillian’s dissenting opinion. His eloquent and forceful discussion of the place of the Fourth Amend *925 ment in our Constitution convinces me that this judgment should be reversed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487531. Public record. Not legal advice.