[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-277588-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-277588-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","814-cr-00185-jfb-fg3-memorandum-and-order","8:14-cr-00185-JFB-FG3 - Memorandum and Order","","Memorandum and Order in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska addresses two motions filed by defendant Kendell Tealer. The motions concern suppressing a warrantless search, requesting a James hearing, excluding evidence of other uncharged criminal acts, and excluding purported co-conspirator hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The Court reviews the parties’ filings and a September 15, 2016 hearing and concludes that Tealer lacks standing to challenge the December 28, 2010 search.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/814-cr-00185-jfb-fg3-memorandum-and-order/277588/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/814-cr-00185-jfb-fg3-memorandum-and-order/277588.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"นรินทร์","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-25","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What motions did Tealer file that the Court addresses?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Tealer filed a motion to suppress the warrantless search and a motion for a James hearing. He also sought to exclude evidence of other uncharged criminal acts and to exclude co-conspirator hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What prompted the search on December 28, 2010?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The search was conducted without a search warrant after police entered the apartment with the property manager’s permission and the landlord had pursued eviction proceedings.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why did the Court find Tealer lacked standing under the Fourth Amendment?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"At the time of the search, the landlord was legally and lawfully in possession of the apartment. Because the landlord, not Tealer, had legal possession, Tealer lacked standing to assert a Fourth Amendment violation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},277588,1790377833,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,93,98,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":26},2336475104957,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000c4c6bd8a5076e1?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1787554080175789136","8:14-cr-00185-JFB-FG3 Doc \\# 226 Filed: 10/05/16 Page 1 of 6-Page ID \\# \u003CpageID>  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA  \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  \nPlaintiff,  \nvs. KENDELL TEALER,  \nDefendant.  \n8:14CR185  \nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER  \nThis matter is before the Court on two motions filed by the defendant Kendell Tealer (“defendant” or “Tealer”) (Filing Nos. 202 and 204) . Defendant filed a motion to suppress search on July 19, 2016. Filing No. 202. On July 20, 2016 defendant filed a motion for a James hearing and to exclude evidence of other criminal acts not charged in the indictment and to exclude the admission of purported co-conspirator hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) . Filing No. 204. The matters have been fully briefed by the parties. See Filing Nos. 203, 204, 210, 211, 218 , and 220. On September 15, 2016, the Court held a hearing as to defendant’s motions. See Filing No. 221. After review of the motions, the parties’ briefs and arguments at the September 15th hearing, and the relevant law, the Court finds as follows.  \nBACKGROUND  \nThe original indictment, brought in May 2014, charged defendant with possession of a firearm on December 18, 2010, after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) . Filing No. 1. The first superseding indictment, brought on August 19, 2014, charged defendant with “knowingly possess[ing]   ammunition which had been shipped and transported in interstate  \n8:14-cr-00185-JFB-FG3 Doc \\# 226 Filed: 10/05/16 Page 2 of 6-Page ID \\# \u003CpageID>  \ncommerce” after prior conviction of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) .  Filing No. 29. The second superseding indictment, brought on May 19, 2015, is a two-count indictment. Count I charges that Tealer “for the purpose of gaining entrance to and maintaining and increasing position in the 40th Ave Crips, an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, did knowingly and intentionally murder Mickle Graham”in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) . Filing No. 53. Count II charges defendant with being knowingly in possession of “ammunition which had been shipped and transported in interstate commerce” after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) . Id.  \nOn December 28, 2010, prior to the filing of the indictments, the Omaha Police Department conducted a search of 1121 North 48th Street, \\#13, Omaha, Nebraska (the“Arias Apartment”) . Filing No. 203 at 1. The search was conducted without a search warrant. See Filing No. 211 at 1-2 (“The property manager allowed the officers to enter the apartment. The officers   searched the apartment and seized several items as evidence related to the murder of Mickle Graham.”) . The apartment searched had been leased to Jeneva Arias, an acquaintance of Tealer. Filing No. 202 at 1.  \nPrior to the December 28, 2010, search, the Arias Apartment “had become the subject of an eviction procedure filed in Douglas County Court.”  Filing No. 203 at 1. The eviction proceedings by the landlord were initiated on November 22, 2010. Id. at 2. On December 7, 2010, a complaint and praecipe were filed. Id. The following day on December 8, 2010,“a Summons was received by the Douglas County constable and a Service Return was filed with the county court.” Id. The county court held a hearing on December 21, 2010. Id. Neither the tenant, Jeneva Arias, nor Tealer were present at  \n8:14-cr-00185-JFB-FG3 Doc \\# 226 Filed: 10/05/16 Page 3 of 6-Page ID \\# \u003CpageID>  \nthe hearing as both were incarcerated. Id. at 2-3; see also Filing No. 211 at 4 (“Defendant argues that because they were incarcerated at the time of the hearing and Arias couldn’t attend  ”) (emphasis added) . Following the December 21, 2010, hearing, the county court entered a writ of restitution and order.  Filing No. 203 at 3.“Later on the 27th of December, an order of No Trespassing and the signed Writ of Re","cbCaifvEYVpJzQ5M","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifvEYVpJzQ5M","pdf",230219,6,"English","# Background\n# Discussion\n## Fourth Amendment Standing\n## Application to Tealer","[{\"question\":\"What motions did Tealer file that the Court addresses?\",\"answer\":\"Tealer filed a motion to suppress the warrantless search and a motion for a James hearing. He also sought to exclude evidence of other uncharged criminal acts and to exclude co-conspirator hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).\"},{\"question\":\"What prompted the search on December 28, 2010?\",\"answer\":\"The search was conducted without a search warrant after police entered the apartment with the property manager’s permission and the landlord had pursued eviction proceedings.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the Court find Tealer lacked standing under the Fourth Amendment?\",\"answer\":\"At the time of the search, the landlord was legally and lawfully in possession of the apartment. Because the landlord, not Tealer, had legal possession, Tealer lacked standing to assert a Fourth Amendment violation.\"}]","8:14-cr-00185-JFB-FG3 - Memorandum and Order | PDF",1789502239]