United States v. Frazier

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005 · Evidence

408 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir. 2005)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencepostarrest silencepre-Miranda silenceFifth AmendmentEqual Protectionselective enforcementconstructive possessionknowledge

Facts

Investigators observed Frazier driving a U-Haul and later had a trooper stop it for failing to maintain a lane. Frazier and his passenger gave conflicting explanations for the trip, and Frazier consented to a search by producing the padlock key to the truck. Officers found a cover load and, behind mattresses, forty-eight boxes of pseudoephedrine totaling over four million tablets; when arrested and told he was under arrest for suspicion of narcotics, Frazier showed no surprise and said nothing. After receiving Miranda warnings, Frazier admitted he had been paid to drive the U-Haul from Chicago to Ontario, California, and that this was his second such trip.

Issue

Did the investigators violate Equal Protection by targeting Frazier solely because of his race, did the government's use of Frazier's postarrest pre-Miranda silence in its case-in-chief violate the Fifth Amendment, and was the evidence sufficient to prove knowing possession and knowledge or reasonable cause to believe the pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture a controlled substance?

Rule

An Equal Protection challenge to pre-contact police targeting requires proof that officers targeted the defendant solely because of race, and an attack on officer credibility alone is insufficient without affirmative evidence of discriminatory motive. On the facts here, use of a defendant's silence during and just after arrest, before Miranda warnings and absent interrogation or other governmental compulsion to speak, does not violate the Fifth Amendment when used in the government's case-in-chief. Constructive possession requires knowledge of the object, the ability to control it, and the intent to do so, and knowledge may be proved by reasonable inference from the circumstances.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

While conducting highway interdiction near Omaha, Nebraska, officers began following a box truck driven by Malik Turner after noticing a new padlock, out-of-state plates, and a large vehicle parked at a motel. Malik later moved to suppress, arguing the officers' reasons were weak because each observation was consistent with innocent travel. He offered no testimony, recording, or statement showing racial animus.

Should the court likely find a pre-contact Equal Protection violation?

Explanation. The majority held that in a pre-contact selective-enforcement claim, the defendant must prove officers targeted him solely because of race. Merely attacking the soundness of the officers' reasons, or showing those reasons are consistent with innocent conduct, is insufficient absent affirmative evidence of discriminatory motive.