(1)Where a defendant argued that DNA evidence tying him to a handgun should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful detention or arrest, the officer that collected the DNA had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the defendant had shoplifted since he matched a description of the shoplifter and was running from the store, so the district court properly denied the motion to suppress the DNA evidence.
(2)Where the district court and the government warned a defendant of the dangers of representing himself, and the court then continued the trial for weeks so that new counsel could be appointed, and the defendant then sought to dismiss the attorney while expressing a clear and unequivocal in his desire to represent himself, the record showed that the defendant’s decision to waive counsel was knowing and voluntary.
Judgment is affirmed.
U.S. v. Benson (MLW No. 63905/Case No. 11-2348 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Doty, J. (Dean S. Grau, Minneapolis, argued for appellant) (Laura M. Provinzino and Jeffrey M. Bryan, Minneapolis, argued for appellee).