The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed the conviction of Remy Wright for being a felon in possession of a firearm under federal law, upholding both the trial court's denial of his suppression motion and the validity of a warrantless vehicle search conducted during a traffic stop.
A jury convicted Wright of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. The conviction stemmed from a firearm discovered by Arkansas State Trooper Anthony Worn during a search of Wright's vehicle following a traffic stop.
Before trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central, Wright filed a motion to suppress the firearm evidence, arguing that Trooper Worn lacked probable cause to search his vehicle. The district court denied the suppression motion, finding that the search was legally justified.
On appeal to the Eighth Circuit, Wright renewed his challenge to the search, again contending that the trooper lacked probable cause to search his vehicle. However, the three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Gruenberg, Kelly, and Erickson, found multiple grounds to reject Wright's appeal.
The court's per curiam opinion, filed Feb. 3, 2026, determined that Wright had waived his suppression argument through his conduct at trial. Specifically, Wright's counsel affirmatively stated "No objection" when the government sought to admit the firearm into evidence during the trial proceedings.
Citing the Eighth Circuit's precedent in United States v. Comstock (8th Cir. 2008), the court explained that a defendant waives any pretrial objection to evidence previously sought to be suppressed when counsel states "no objection" to the receipt of that evidence at trial. The Comstock decision established that defendants cannot challenge evidence on appeal that they failed to object to during trial, even if they had previously filed suppression motions.
This waiver doctrine serves important judicial efficiency purposes, preventing defendants from pursuing inconsistent litigation strategies by objecting to evidence before trial but then accepting it during trial proceedings.
Even setting aside the waiver issue, the appeals court indicated that Wright's probable cause challenge would have failed on the merits. The opinion noted that Trooper Worn had probable cause to search Wright's vehicle for evidence of a violation of Arkansas Code § 5-71-218(a), though the full text of this state statute was not included in the available court documents.
The case illustrates several important legal principles governing criminal procedure and evidence law. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) makes it a crime for any person who has been convicted of a felony to possess firearms or ammunition. This statute is frequently used in federal prosecutions and carries significant penalties.
The Fourth Amendment requires that vehicle searches be supported by probable cause, unless they fall under established exceptions such as searches incident to arrest or inventory searches. In this case, the state trooper's search appears to have been justified by probable cause to believe evidence of a state law violation would be found in the vehicle.
The waiver doctrine applied in Wright's case reflects courts' expectations that defense attorneys will maintain consistent positions throughout litigation. When defense counsel explicitly states they have no objection to evidence being admitted, courts treat this as an abandonment of previous suppression arguments.
This principle prevents defendants from having multiple opportunities to challenge the same evidence and promotes finality in criminal proceedings. It also places responsibility on defense counsel to carefully consider their trial strategy and maintain objections to evidence they believe was illegally obtained.
The unpublished nature of the Eighth Circuit's decision means it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases, though it may be cited for its persuasive value. Unpublished opinions are typically issued in cases that apply well-established legal principles to routine factual scenarios.
The case was submitted to the Eighth Circuit on Dec. 15, 2025, and decided on Feb. 3, 2026, representing a relatively quick turnaround for the appeals court. This timeline suggests the legal issues were straightforward and did not require extensive deliberation.
For practitioners in the Eighth Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining consistent objections throughout criminal proceedings and the consequences of waiving previously raised suppression arguments.
The affirmation of Wright's conviction means his sentence will stand, and he faces the federal penalties associated with felon-in-possession charges, which can include significant prison time depending on his criminal history and other sentencing factors.