8th Circuit upholds drug convictions for Andrew Bigbee, ruling he waived his phone search challenge…
United States v. Andrew Bigbee
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit upholds drug convictions for Andrew Bigbee, ruling he waived his phone search challenge and the government presented enough evidence to convict him on all four counts.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit affirmed Andrew Bigbee's convictions on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and three counts of possession with intent to distribute. The court ruled that Bigbee waived his challenge to the cell phone search by failing to argue in his appellate brief why the lower court was wrong to find his suppression motion untimely. The court also found that the government presented sufficient evidence at trial, including witness testimony, text messages, large quantities of drugs, cash, and drug-related equipment, to support all four counts.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Andrew Bigbee, who remains convicted on all four drug charges. More broadly, it serves as a reminder to criminal defendants that failing to argue a specific legal issue in an appellate brief will result in that issue being treated as waived, regardless of its potential merits.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 17, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 17, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 17, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Andrew Bigbee was convicted on four federal drug charges after law enforcement searched his motorhome and two Minnesota residences, recovering roughly 30 pounds of methamphetamine, hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, firearms, money counters, scales, and plastic bags. Officers also seized his cell phone, which the government searched 22 months later, finding photographs of methamphetamine. Bigbee raised two challenges on appeal: that the cell phone search was unreasonable because the government waited too long, and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support any of his convictions. On the cell phone issue, the district court had denied Bigbee's suppression motion primarily because he filed it just days before trial, making it untimely. The Eighth Circuit reviewed that denial only for abuse of discretion. Critically, Bigbee did not address the timeliness ruling in his appellate brief, so the court held that he had waived the argument entirely. Because he never challenged the basis on which the lower court actually ruled, the appeals court affirmed the denial without reaching the merits of the search's reasonableness. On the sufficiency of the evidence, the court reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the government. For the conspiracy count, the court pointed to testimony from two co-conspirators who said they worked with Bigbee to bring methamphetamine from Arizona to Minnesota, as well as text messages showing Bigbee arranging drug purchases in Arizona. For the three possession with intent to distribute counts, the court noted the specific evidence at each location: Bigbee was found in a garage alongside drug paraphernalia, cash, and mail in his name; an attached garage held about one pound of methamphetamine; and the motorhome and Elko residence contained additional evidence. The court acknowledged Bigbee's argument that others present during the search could have owned some of the drugs, but held that such alternative theories are not enough to overturn a jury verdict. The opinion was issued per curiam, meaning no single judge authored it, and the source text does not reflect any dissent. The ruling does not appear to change existing legal standards but applies them to uphold the convictions.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-3160 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Andrew Jerome Bigbee Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 21, 2025 Filed: July 17, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before L.R. SMITH, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Law enforcement officers found large quantities of methamphetamine and evidence of drug trafficking after searching Andrew Bigbee’s motorhome and residences in Richfield and Elko, Minnesota. During the search of the Elko residence, law enforcement seized Bigbee’s cell phone. Twenty-two months later, the government searched the cell phone and uncovered more evidence, including photographs of methamphetamine. A grand jury indicted Bigbee on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (Count One) and three counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Counts Two, Three, and Four) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. A few days before trial, Bigbee moved to suppress the evidence the government found on his cell phone. The district court1 denied the motion, in part, because it was untimely. Bigbee’s case then proceeded to trial, where he moved for judgment of acquittal after the government’s case-in-chief, arguing the government failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could convict him on any count. The district court also denied this motion, and the jury ultimately convicted Bigbee on all counts. Bigbee now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress and for judgment of acquittal. We affirm. Taking the two issues in turn, a motion to suppress is generally subject to a mixed standard of review, with the factual findings reviewed for clear error and the motion’s denial reviewed de novo. United States v. Mayo, 97 F.4th 552, 555 (8th Cir. 2024). But when a motion to suppress is denied as untimely, as was the case here, we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. King, 854 F.3d 433, 443 (8th Cir. 2017). Bigbee argues the government’s search of his cell phone was unreasonable because the government waited too long to search it. But he failed to address the district court’s conclusion that his motion was untimely on appeal. Because claims not raised in an appellant’s brief are deemed waived, we affirm here. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008). Turning to Bigbee’s motion for acquittal, he argues the government did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction on any count. “We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government, resolving conflicts in the government’s favor, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict.” United States v. Hayward, 124 F.4th 1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- 1113, 1120 (8th Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. Thompson, 881 F.3d 629, 632 (8th Cir. 2018)).2 Starting with Count One, to prove conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, the government must show “(1) a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine existed; (2) the defendant knew about the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly became a part of the conspiracy.” United States v. Garcia, 646 F.3d 1061, 1066 (8th Cir. 2011). “The conspiracy’s existence may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Milk, 66 F.4th 1121, 1135 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Cain, 487 F.3d 1108, 1111 (8th Cir. 2007)). “The jury may rely on the testimony of a co-conspirator to determine whether the defendant knew of and intentionally joined the conspiracy.” United States v. Agena, 138 F.4th 1063, 1071 (8th Cir. 2025). Here, the government presented sufficient evidence to support Bigbee’s conviction on Count One. The government introduced evidence that law enforcement recovered approximately 30 pounds of methamphetamine, hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, and other items associated with drug distribution, including firearms, money counters, digital scales, and plastic bags during the searches of Bigbee’s residences and motorhome. Two witnesses also testified they conspired with Bigbee to obtain methamphetamine from Arizona to distribute in Minnesota. And the government introduced text messages from Bigbee facilitating the purchase of drugs in Arizona with two individuals who were arrested in Arizona 2 After the close of the government’s evidence, Bigbee moved for acquittal, which the district court denied. He did not renew his motion for acquittal at the close of all evidence as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. Our precedent conflicts as to whether a motion for acquittal must be renewed at the close of the defendant’s case where he put on his own evidence, if the motion was already made at the close of the government’s case. See King, 854 F.3d at 441 (noting the conflict); see also United States v. Marble, No. 23-1615, 2024 WL 3507643, at *2 n.3 (8th Cir. July 23, 2024) (explaining the conflict). Regardless of whether de novo or plain error review is proper here, we affirm. -3- after setting a rental car containing approximately 12 pounds of methamphetamine on fire. Turning to Counts Two, Three, and Four, to prove possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, the government must show Bigbee “(1) knowingly possessed a controlled substance and (2) intended to distribute some or all of it.” United States v. Thompson, 686 F.3d 575, 583 (8th Cir. 2012). “Possession can be actual or constructive, and an individual has constructive possession of contraband if he has dominion over the premises in which the contraband is concealed.” Id. (cleaned up). “Constructive possession need not be exclusive.” Id. at 584. As to Count Two, the government presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude Bigbee possessed methamphetamine with intent to distribute at his Richfield residence. The government’s evidence showed that law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Bigbee’s Richfield residence. At the residence, officers found Bigbee inside the residence’s detached garage with dishware containing methamphetamine, two firearms, $8,800, a money counting machine, a digital scale, plastic bags, and mail addressed to Bigbee. In the attached garage, officers found approximately one pound of methamphetamine. While Bigbee puts forth a theory that the methamphetamine found in the attached garage belonged to two other people who were present during the search, this is insufficient to overturn the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Burch, 113 F.4th 815, 822 (8th Cir. 2024) (“[E]ven if [the defendant]’s alternative theories are within the realm of possibility, they do not give us reason to overturn the jury’s verdict.”). Regarding Count Three, the government presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude Bigbee possessed methamphetamine in his motorhome with intent to distribute. Specifically, the government’s evidence demonstrated that when officers executed a search warrant on the motorhome, they fo
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.