# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 16 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Dijo n R as he ed Bro wn

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 19 Fi le d: Ju ly 16, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , BENTON and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

. Dijo n Ras he ed Bro wn was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or

m or e of m et ha m

ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U .S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), an d 84 6,

an d fo r po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S

. C

. § 8 4 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 1( b) (1 )(A), fo r hi s in vo lv em en t in a dr ug di st rib ut io no p e rat io n. Po li ce arre st ed Bro wn aft er co nd uc ti ng a co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry of a 1

m et ha m ph et am in e-fi ll ed pa ck ag e ad dr es se d to th e du pl ex whe re Bro wn was st ay in g. Bro wn rai se s s e v e r a l is su es on ap pe al in co nn ect io n wit h hi s arre st an d tri al

. Sp eci fic al ly, Bro wn arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in (1 ) de nyin g hi s m ot io n to 2

su pp res s th e ev id en ce co ll ect ed as a res ul t of th e co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry ; (2 ) de nyin g hi s

m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on bo th th e co ns pi racy an d po ss es si on wit h in te nt
to di st rib ut e ch arg es ; (3 ) ad m it ti ng cert ai n ph ot og rap hs of hi m at t r i a l ; a n d (4 ) de nyin g Bro wn a two -le ve l m in or ro le red uc ti on at se nt en ci ng

. W e di sa gr ee, an d we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t i n a ll res pe ct s.

I. Bac kg ro un d
In Sep te m

be r 20 15
, Zach ary Fen ne ll was ro bb ed at 42 62 San ta Barb ara Dr. in
Co l um bi a, Mi ss ou ri (“ th e res id en ce”)
, a du pl ex ren te d by hi s gi rlf rie nd
, Mel is sa Gue rra. Fen ne ll was a d r u g d e a le r. He rece iv ed m et ha m ph et am in e fro m Cal ifo rn ia th ro ug h t he m ai l at va rio us ad dr es se s an d t he n di st rib ut ed th e m et ha m ph et am in e to
ot he r s in th e Co lu m

bi a area fo r sa le ; Fen ne ll ’s ne ig hb or s, Je rem y an d St ep ha ni e Max well
, so ld m et ha m

ph et am in e fo r Fen ne ll

. The m en who ro bb ed Fen ne ll in Sep te m be r at ta ck ed hi m an d st ol e dr ug s, m on ey , an d gu ns

. S o o n a f t e r th e ro bb ery, th ree m en arri ve d fro m Cal ifo rn ia an d be ga n st ay in g wit h Fen ne ll

. One of th es e m en

was Bro wn.

The n, in Octo be r an d Nov em be r 20 15
, po st al in sp ect or s id en ti fie d se ve ral

su sp ic io us pa ck ag es be in g m ai le d fro m th e Los Ang el es , Cal ifo rn ia area to va rio us Co lu m bi a, Mi ss ou ri ad dr es se s. I n e arl y Nov em be r, po st al in sp ect or s id en ti fie d a
pa ck ag e fro m th e Los Ang el es area ad dr es se d to “ Mar th a Gue rra” at th e res id en ce as

Bro wn was al so co nv ic te d of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , bu t th at 1

co nv ic ti on is no t at is su e in th is ap pe al

. The Hon or ab le St ep he n R. Bo ug h, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e f o r th e 2 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-su sp ic io us

. Po st al In sp ect or Ch ris to ph er Farm er ob ta in ed a warra nt fo r th e pa ck ag e

a nd di sc ov ered ab ou t 45 6 gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e in si de

. In sp ect or Farm er

rem ov ed 35 6 g ram s fr om th e p ack ag e, le av in g 1 00 gra m s i ns id e.

In sp ect or Farm er th en su bm it te d an affi da vi t in su pp or t of an an ti ci pa t o r y

se arch warra nt fo r th e res id en ce. In hi s affi da vi t, In sp ect or Farm er ex pl ai ne d th at he ha d di sc ov ered ab ou t 45 6 gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e in si de th e pa ck ag e bu t th at he ha d rei ns ert ed ab ou t 10 0 gr am s fo r th e pu rp os e of a co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry

. The affi da vi t al so ex pl ai ne d th at th e co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry wou ld be pe rfo rm ed by a la w en fo rcem en t
ag en t weari ng a U n i te d St at es Po st al Serv ic e un ifo rm

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e affi da vi t
pr ov id ed : “ Deli ve ry wil l be m ad e on ly to an ad ul t wil li ng to acce pt de li ve ry on be ha lf of ‘Marth a Gue rra,’ to who m th e Su bjec t Parc el is ad dr es se d. Eve ry effo rt wil l be

m ad e to m ak e de li ve ry to ‘Marth a Gue rra’ an d in no ev en t wil l th e pa ck ag e be de li ve red to a ch il d.” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , No. 2: 15 -cr- 04 06 7- SRB
, 2 0 1 7 W L 32 75 97 0, at *4 (W. D. Mo

. Ju ly 21
, 20 17 ), re po rt an d re co mmend

at io n ad op te d
, No. 2: 15 -CR- 04 06 7- SRB, 20 17 W L 32 75 71 9 (W. D. Mo

. Aug

. 1, 20 17 ). B a se d on th e

co nt en ts of th e pa ck ag e, In sp ect or Farm er be li ev ed th ere was a fai r pr ob ab il it y of dr ug act iv it y

on th e p rem is es

. A m ag is tra te jud ge ag reed an d is su ed an an ti ci pa to ry

warra nt fo r th e pr em is es . Th e warra nt in cl ud ed a “ tri gg eri ng ev en t,” pr o vi di ng th at
pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e res id en ce wou ld be es ta bl is he d on ce “ [a]n ad ul t su bjec t
tra ns po rt[ ed ] so m e or al l of th e m et ha m ph et am in e in si de th e ta rg et ad dr es s.” Id

. The

warra nt al so in cl ud ed a no ti ce pr ov id in g th at th e “ warra nt sh al l be ex ecu te d on ly aft er th is act oc cu rs . Oth erwi se , th is warran t s ha ll no t b e ex ecu te d.” Id

.

Law en fo rcem en t sc he du le d th e co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry fo r Nov em be r 10

. Offi cers

s u r v e i l l ed th e res id en ce pr io r to an d du rin g th e de li ve ry , an d at 9: 55 a.m ., t h e y ob se rv ed Bro wn an d an ot he r m al e en te rin g an SUV pa rk ed in fro nt of th e res id en ce. At 10 :0 4 a.m ., an un de rco ve r of fic er at te m

pt ed de li ve ry at th e fro nt do or an d th en le ft th e pa ck ag e ne ar th e fro nt do or

. In sp ect or Farm er, who was on sc en e du rin g th e

co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry , “ ob se rv e d a n in di vi du al in si de of th e res id en ce op en in g an d

-3

-cl os in g th e do or se ve ral ti m es as if th ey were lo ok in g at th e pa ck ag e.” Tria l Tr., Day

1, at 42
, Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , No. 2: 15 -cr- 04 06 7- SRB (W. D. Mo

. Apr

. 13
, 20 18 ),
ECF No. 52 0. At 10 :3 1 a.m ., th e SUV dr ov e pa st th e res id en ce, th en ret ur ne d an d

pa rk ed in th e dr iv eway. At tri al , I ns p e c t o r F a r m er de sc rib ed th is act iv it y as “ a he at

r un , wh ic h is a co un te rs ur ve il la nc e m an eu ve r em pl oyed by i nd iv id ua ls in vo l v e d i n cri m in al act iv it y to sc ou t fo r an d l o ok fo r th e lo cat io n of la w en fo rcem en t in th e

area .” Id

. at 42 –4 3. At 10 :3 4 a.m ., Bro wn an d an ot he r m an ex it ed th e ve hi cl e an d

ap pr oa ch ed th e res id en ce. Bro wn th en pi ck ed up th e p ack ag e an d t oo k it in si de th e

res id en ce.

Onc e Bro wn br ou gh t th e pa ck ag e in si de
, In sp ect or Farm er al ert ed th e of fic ers th at th e tri gg eri ng ev en t ha d oc cu rred

. W it hi n two m in ut es of Bro wn br i n g i n g th e
pa ck ag e in si de
, Fen ne ll br ou gh t th e pa ck ag e ba ck ou ts id e on to th e fro nt do or st ep an d le ft i t th ere. Offi cers so on en te red th e res id en ce th ro ug h th e ba ck do or aft er be in g

un ab le to br each th e fro nt do or

. Bro wn an d ot he rs at te m pt ed to fle e. Bro wn was la te r fo un d hi di ng in si de a ne arb y sh ed

. Afte r ex ecu ti on of th e warra nt , of fic ers di sc ov ered th at Bro wn ha d writ te n “ Ret ur n to Sen de r” on th e pa ck ag e be fo re pl aci ng it ba ck on th e d oo rs te p.

Dur in g th ei r se arch of th e res id en ce, of fic ers di sc ov ered e v i d e nc e of dr ug
tra ffi ck in g, in cl ud in g se ve ral we a p o n s , a dr ug le dg er, an d in cri m in at in g te xt

m es s a g e s

. S pe ci fic al ly, th ey di sc ov ered a lo ad ed ha nd gu n un de r a be d in Bro wn’s be d r o o m; a p ie ce of pa pe r wit h th e in it ia ls “ LT” writ te n on it al on g wit h dr ug
qu an ti ti es an d pr ic es (la te r de te rm in ed to b e a d r u g le dg er); an d a te xt m es sa ge

as so ci at ed wit h LT’ s ph on e nu m be r in st ru ct in g so m eo ne to pu rch as e dr ug s. Bro wn’s DNA was fo un d o n t he gu n u nd er h is be d, an d t es ti ng als o s ug ge st ed hi s DNA was

on at l eas t o ne ot he r gu n fo un d i ns id e th e res id en ce.

S u b s eq ue nt ly, Bro wn was in di ct ed fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib u t e

m et ha m ph et am in e an d po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m p h e t am in e;

-4

-Fen ne ll
, Gue rra, an d ot he r co co ns pi rat or s were al so in di ct ed

. Pri or to tri al
, Bro wn

m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce reco ve red du rin g th e Nov e mb er 10 rai d. Bro wn
arg ue d th at th e an ti ci pa to ry warra nt was no t su pp or te d by pr ob ab le cau se an d th at th e tri gg eri ng ev en t to ex ecu te th e warra nt ne ve r oc cu rred

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s

m ot io n. The co ur t f

o u n d t he tri gg eri ng ev en t oc cu rred whe n Bro wn br ou gh t th e
pa ck ag e in si de th e res id en ce. It al so fo u n d t h a t ev en if th e tri gg eri ng ev en t di d no t

oc cu r, la w en fo rcem en t rel ie d on th e warra nt in go od fai th

. Bro wn al so fil ed a m ot io n in li m in e to ex cl ud e an y ev id en ce of hi s g a n g a f f i l i at io n. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d
Bro wn’s m ot io n in pa rt, in st ru ct in g th e go ve rn m en t no t to m en ti on ga ng affi li at io n; ho wev er, th e co ur t al lo wed th e go ve rn m en t to in tro du ce cert ai n pi ct ur es of Bro wn, Fen ne ll , and ot he r co de fen da nt s.

At tri al
, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue d th at Bro wn ha d m ov ed fro m Cal ifo rn ia to as si st Fen ne ll wit h hi s dr ug di st rib ut io n op erat io n, sp ec i f i cal ly no ti ng Bro wn’s ro le in

pr ov id in g pr ot ect io n to Fen ne ll aft er he ha d be en ro bb ed

. The go ve rn m e n t cal le d

se ve ral wit ne ss es , in cl ud in g In sp ect or Farm er, FBI Age nt St acy Ban ks
, Gue rra, a fem al e cl ie nt na m ed Je ss ie Ben ed ic t, an d J e r e my M a xwe ll

. Dur in g Age nt Ban ks ’s

te st im on y , th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ced se ve ral pi ct ur es of B r o wn, Fen ne ll
, an d th e
ot he r co de fen da nt s fo r th e pu rp os e of es ta bl is hi ng th e rel at io ns hi p am on g th es e in di vi du al s. Bro wn cl ai med th es e pi ct ur es were pr ejud ic ia l be cau se th ey al le ge dl y de pi ct ed c ert ai n ga ng si gn s, an d he ob jecte d to th ei r in tro du ct io n. Howev er, th e
go ve rn m en t m ad e no m e n t i o n of ga ng s or ga ng affi li at io n du rin g th e tri al

. Gue rra id en ti fie d Bro wn as “ Lit tl e T” an d al so te st ifi ed to se ei ng gu ns “ [e]ver y whe re” whe n sh e vi si te d th e res id en ce. Tria l Tr., Day 2, at 14 3, Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , No. 2: 15

- cr-0 40 67 -SRB (W. D. Mo

. Apr

. 13
, 20 18 ), ECF No. 52 1. Ben ed ic t st at ed th at Bro wn

so m et im es acco m

pa ni ed Fen ne ll whe n Fen ne ll so ld he r dr ug s; sh e al so de sc rib ed an

oc cas io n whe n Br o wn us ed he r pr op ert y fo r ta rg et pr act ic e. Max well te st ifi ed th at ,
on on e o ccas io n, Br own pro vi de d F en ne ll wit h m et ha m ph et am in e.

-5

-At th e cl os e of th e cas e, Bro wn m ov ed fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al
, arg ui ng th at

th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to fin d hi m gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t of ei th er ch arg e. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Bro wn’s m ot io n, an d th e jury fo un d Bro wn gu il ty of bo th co ns pi racy to di st rib u t e met h am ph et am in e an d po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m

ph et am in e.

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d Bro wn’s Gui de li ne s ran ge as 21 0

to 26 2 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, a ran ge refl ect in g an of fen se le ve l of 34 an d a cri m in al hi st o r y cat eg or y of IV. Bro wn m ov ed fo r a two -le ve l m in or ro le red uc ti on , bu t th e

co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n aft er fin di ng th at Bro wn pl ay ed a “ m or e th an [a] de m in im is

ro le ” in th e dr ug co ns pi racy. Sen t. Tr. at 9, Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , N o. 2: 15 -cr0 4 0 6 7- SRB (W. D. Mo

. Apr

. 16
, 20 18 ), ECF No. 52 6. The di st ric t co ur t ul t i mat e l y

se nt en ced Bro wn t o t wo co nc ur ren t 1 88 -m on th sen te nc es

.

II. Dis cu ss io n A. Ant ic ip at or

y S ea rc h War ra nt Bro wn co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha v e su pp res se d th e ev id en ce

un co ve red du rin g th e se arch of th e res id en ce, as th e an ti ci pa to ry warra nt al lo win g th e

se arch was no t su pp or te d by pr ob ab le cau se an d no t pr op erl y ex ecu te d. “ W e rev ie w
t h e d e n i al of a m ot io n to su pp res s de no vo bu t rev ie w th e un de rlyin g fact ua l de te rm in at io ns fo r cl ear erro r, gi vi ng du e weig ht to th e in fere nc es of th e di st ric t co ur t

an d la w en fo rcem en t of

fic ia ls .” Uni te d St a t e s v

. W al ker
, 32 4 F.3 d 10 32
, 10 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

1. Pro ba bl e Ca us e

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ov id es th at “ no W arra nt s sh al l is su e, bu t up on pr ob ab le cau se , su pp or te d by Oath or affi rm at io n.” To fin d pr ob ab le

cau se to is su e a warr an t, the is su in g m ag is tra te m us t det erm in e th at , in li gh t of al l th e ci rcu m st an ce s s e t f o r t h in th e affi da vi t, th ere is a fai r

-6

-pr ob ab il it y th at co nt ra b a n d o r ev id en ce of a cri m e wil l be fo un d in a

pa rti cu la r pl ace.

Uni te d S t a te s v. Ta gb er in g , 98 5 F.2 d 94 6, 94 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

om it te d)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s up he ld th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y o f an ti ci pa to ry

warra nt s. Uni te d St at es v. Gru bb s , 54 7 U.S. 90
, 96 (2 00 6) (“ Ant ic ip at or y warra nt s are

. . . n o di ffer en t in pr in ci pl e fro m or di na ry warra nt s. The y req ui r e t h e m ag is tra te to de te rm in e (1 ) th at it is no w pr ob ab le th at (2 ) co nt rab an d, ev id en ce of a cri m e, or a fu gi ti ve wil l b e o n t he de sc rib ed pre m is es (3) when th e warra nt is ex ecu te d.” ).

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n of pr ob ab le cau se [to is su e

an an ti ci pa to ry warra nt ] un de r a cl earl y e r r o n eo us st an da rd
, an d gi ve
co ns id erab le de fere nc e to th e is su in g jud ge ’s de te rm in at io n of pr ob ab le

cau se

. W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on un le ss it is un su pp or te d by

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, ba se d on an erro ne ou s in te rp ret at io n of th e la w, or , ba se d on th e en ti r e reco rd
, it is cl ear th at a m is ta ke was m ad e. An

an ti ci pa to ry se arch warra nt s h o ul d be up he ld if in de pe nd en t ev id en ce sh ows th e de li ve ry of co n t r a b a n d w il l or is li ke ly to oc cu r an d th e
warra nt is co nd it io ne d o n t ha t d el iv ery.

W al ker , 32 4 F .3d at 1 03 8 (cl ean ed up ).

Bro wn arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d t o th e m ag is tra te jud ge in th e affi da vi t “ fai le d t o r e c i t e a ny fact s in di cat in g th at an oc cu pa nt or own er of th e Res id en ce was en ga ge d in an y cri m in al act iv it y .” App el la nt ’s Br. at 21

. As su pp or t, he no te s In sp ect or Farm er’s ad m is si on “ th at th e affi da vi t was pr em is ed so le ly on th e
pa ck ag e it se lf.” Id

. Bro wn th en in co rrec tl y im pl ie s th at th e pa ck ag e an d it s co nt en ts

co ul d no t su pp or t a fin di ng of pr ob ab le cau se to is su e an an ti ci pa to ry warra nt wit ho ut ad di ti on al ev id en ce o f cri m in al act iv it y at t he res id en ce.

-7

-Thi s arg um en t is co nt rary to ou r d e c i s i o n in W al ker
, whe re we up he ld an

an ti ci pa to ry warra nt is su ed on ne ar-i de nt ic al gr ou nd s. Se e 32 4 F.3 d at 10 38

. Bro wn
at te m pt s to di st in gu is h W

al ker by no ti ng th at th e pa ck ag e in W al ker was ad dr es se d

to an al ia s of th e t a r g et res id en ce’s oc cu pa nt an d was pe rs on al ly acce pt ed by th at

oc cu pa nt

. Id

. at 10 36

. Howev er, of fic ers in W

al ker on ly di sc ov ered ev id en ce th at th e

oc cu pa nt ha d us ed th e al ia s af te r se arch in g th e ta rg et res id en ce, id

. at 10 36
, m ak in g th at di st in c t i o n irr el ev an t in as se ss in g th e ex is te nc e of pr ob ab le cau se be fo re th e

se arch

. And
, th e fact th at th e su sp ect in W al ker acce pt ed th e pa ck ag e in pe rs on wou ld

go no t to whe th er pr ob ab le cau se ex is t e d t o i s s u e th e warra nt bu t to whe th er th e

warra nt was p ro pe rly exec ut ed

. Se e Ta gb er in g , 98 5 F .2d at 9 50

.

The m ag is tra te jud ge in th e in st an t cas e is su ed th e an ti ci pa to ry warra nt fo r th e

res id en ce on th e un de rs ta nd in g th at (1 ) a pa ck ag e co nt ai ni ng a si gn ifi can t am ou nt of

m et ha m ph et am in e ha d be en ad dr es se d to th e res id en ce, an d (2 ) th e warra nt wou ld no t be ex ecu te d u nt il off

ic ers pe rfo rm ed a co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry . As in W al ker , th e u se of th e m ai l syste m to de l i v e r il le ga l dr ug s to a sp eci fic ad dr es s pr ov id ed su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce to su pp or t is su an ce of an an ti ci pa to ry warra nt to se arch th e ta rg et res id en ce. The re f o r e , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th e warra nt was su pp or te d by

pr ob ab le cau se an d in de cl in in g to su pp res s th e ev id en ce on th e gr ou n d s t h a t th e

warra nt was i m

pr op erl y is su ed

.

2. Pro pe r Exe cu ti on

“ Mo st an ti ci pa to ry warra nt s su bjec t th ei r ex ecu ti on to so m e co nd it io n
pr eced en t o th er t ha n th e m ere p as sa ge of t im e—a so -cal le d ‘tri gg eri ng co nd it io n.’”
Gru bb s , 54 7 U.S. at 94

. Occu rren c e of th e tri gg eri ng co nd it io n es ta bl is he s th e
req ui si te co nn ect io n bet ween “ th e it em de sc rib ed in th e warra nt ” an d “ th e se arch ed lo cat io n.” Id

. If an an ti ci pa to ry warra nt is ex ecu te d be fo re th e tri gg eri ng ev en t oc cu rs ,

“ th en s u p p r e ss io n m ay well be warra nt ed fo r th at reas on .” Ta gb er in g , 98 5 F.2 d at 95 0.

-8

-Bro wn co nt en ds th e warra nt was im pr op erl y ex ecu te d, rel y in g on In sp ect or Farm er’s st at em en t in hi s affi da vi t th at of fic ers wou l d d e li ve r th e pa ck ag e “ on ly t o

an ad ul t wil li ng to acce pt de li ve ry .” Bro wn , 20 17 W L 32 75 97 0, at *4

. Tho u g h th e

warra nt it se lf co nt ai ne d no su ch co nd it io n, Bro wn arg ue s th e affi da vi t an d warra nt

m us t be read to ge th er to fo rm ul at e a su ffi ci en tl y sp eci fic tri gg eri ng ev en t. Si nc e th e
pa ck ag e was no t un co nd it io na ll y acce p t e d

— b ut rat he r, pl aced ba ck ou ts id e th e

res id en ce wit

h ins tr uc tio ns to “ Ret ur n to Sen de r”— Bro wn arg ue s th e tri gg eri ng ev en t

ne ve r oc cu rred an d th e req ui si te rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa ck ag e an d th e res id en ce

was n e v e r es ta bl is he d. Bro wn th us cl ai m s th e ev id en ce se iz ed du rin g th e of fic ers ’

se arch of t he res id en ce m us t b e su pp res se d.

Howev er, e v e n i f B r own is co rrec t th at th e tri gg eri ng ev en t di d no t oc cu r,

su pp res si on of t he sea rch res ul ts is un warra nt ed

.

W he n of fic ers ha ve rel ie d up on a su bs eq ue nt ly in va li da te d s e a rch

warra nt , Leo n pe rm it s ad m is si on of th e se iz ed ev i d e nc e un le ss “ th e

m ag is tra te ab an do ne d hi s de ta ch ed an d ne ut ral ro le ” in is su in g th e
warra nt , or “t h e of

fic ers were di sh on es t or reck le ss in pr ep ari ng th ei r affi da vi t or co ul d no t ha ve ha rb or ed an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le be li ef in th e ex is te nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se .”

Ta gb er in g , 98 5 F.2 d a t 95 1 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Leo n , 46 8 U.S. 89 7, 92 6 (1 98 4) ).

Bro wn arg ue s th e of

fic ers co ul d no t reas on ab ly ha ve be li ev ed pr ob ab le cau se

ex is te d to ex ecu te th e warra nt aft er th e pa ck ag e was pl aced ba ck ou ts id e. Howev er, th ere is no th in g to in di cat e th at th e of fic ers un reas on ab ly rel ie d on th e warra nt

. Eve n if th e warra nt sh ou ld ha ve be en m or e na rro wly ta il or ed
, th e te xt of th e warra nt it se lf

on ly s pe c i fie d tra ns po rta ti on of th e m et ha m ph et am in e in si de th e res id en ce— an act whi ch al l pa rti es ag ree oc cu rre d

. F u r t he rm or e, In sp ect or Farm er te st ifi ed th at th e of fic ers di d no t real iz e “ Ret ur n to Sen de r” ha d be en writ te n on th e pa ck ag e un ti l af te r

-9

-th ey

ex ecu te d t he warran t. Fi na ll y , off ic ers ob se rv ed Bro wn an d h is co co ns pi rat or s

en ga gi ng in su sp ic io u s b e h a v i or be fo re Bro wn br ou gh t th e pa ck ag e in to th e

res id en ce, st ren gt he ni ng th ei r b el ie f th at th ey ha d pr ob ab le cau se to ex ecu te th e

warra nt

.

Bec au se th e o ffi cers rel ie d o n t he warran t in go od fai th , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id

no t err in fai li ng to su pp res s th e ev id e n ce on th e gr ou nd th at th e of fic ers la ck ed

pr ob ab le cau se to ex ecu te th e warra nt

.

B. Su ff ic ie nc y o f t he Evid en ce

Und er Ru le 29 (a), a co ur t m us t en te r a jud g men t o f acq ui tt al of an y of fen se f or whi ch th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su st ai n a co nv ic ti on

. Thi s co ur t re v i e ws th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g
ev i d e n c e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng
co nf li ct s i n t h e go ve rn m en t’s fav or , an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at s u pp or t th e ve rd ic t. A co ur t sh ou ld no t weig h th e
ev id en ce or as se ss th e cred ib il it y o f wit ne ss es

. The st an da rd is ve ry st ric t, an d th is co ur t wil l rev ers e th e co nv ic ti on on ly if we co nc lu de th at

no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e accu se d gu i l t y b ey on d a
reas on ab le do ub t.

Uni te d S ta te s v. S

an ta na , 52 4 F .3d 85 1, 8 53 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) (cl ean ed up ).

1. Co ns pi ra cy t o Di st ri bu te

“ To es ta bl is h th e ex is te nc e of a co ns pi racy, t he go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e th at : 1) th ere was a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e; 2) th e de fen da nt kn ew of th e co ns pi racy; an d 3) t h e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly pa rti ci pa te d in th e co ns pi racy.”
Uni te d S ta te s v. Bo rd ea ux , 43 6 F .3d 90 0, 9 03 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

Bro wn arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th e el em en ts of

co ns pi racy an d ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co u r t’s de ci si on to de ny hi s m ot io n fo r

-1 0-jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

. Br ow n pa rt ic ular ly ch al le ng es th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss Je rem y Max well , wh o cl ai m ed he ob se rv ed Bro wn en ga ge in a dr ug tra ns act io n. Howev er,

“ [d ]eterm in in g th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es is th e pr ov in ce of th e jury. As a res ul t, we gi ve si gn ifi can t weig ht to th e jury’ s de te rm in at io ns as to th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es .” Id

. at 90 4 (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Bro wn “ ha s pr ov id ed no ba si s fo r de vi at in g fro m th is rul e.” Id

.

Fu rth erm or e, ex cl ud in g Max well ’s te st im on y , th e go ve rn m en t p r es en te d

su ffi ci en t ad di ti on al ev id en ce li nk in g B r own to th e co ns pi racy. In sp ect or Farm er
te st ifi ed to Bro wn’s su sp ic io us be ha vi or du rin g th e co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry , in cl ud in g th e

“ he at run .” It was fu rth er es ta bl is he d th at Bro wn fle d th e sc en e aft er p ol ic e en te red th e res id en ce. In si de th e res id en ce, of fic ers di sc ov ered at le as t two gu ns wit h Bro wn’s DNA, on e of whi ch was hi dd en un d e r B r o w n ’s be d. Thi s di sc ov ery, al on g wit h
Gue rra’s t e s t i mo ny th at th ere were gu ns th ro ug ho ut th e ho us e an d Ben ed ic t’s

te st im on y th at Bro wn ha d us ed he r pr op e r t y fo r ta rg et pr act ic e an d acco m pa ni ed
Fen ne ll whe n Fen ne ll so ld he r dr ug s, su pp or te d th e go ve rn m en t’s cl ai m th at Bro wn

was pr ov id in g pr ot ect io n to Fen ne ll an d hi s dr ug op erat io n. Offi cers al so di sc ov ered

a dr ug le dg er be ari ng Bro wn’s st reet na m e, “ LT,” an d a te xt as so ci at ed wit h LT’ s

nu m be r refe ren ci ng a dr ug tra ns act io n; Gue rra id en ti fie d Bro wn as “ Lit tl e T” at tri al

.

In li gh t of thi s evi de nc e, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t err in de nyin g Bro wn’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al on th e co ns pi racy char ge

.

2. Pos se ss io n w it h In te nt to Dis tr ib ut e

To su st ai n a co nv ic ti on fo r ai di ng an d ab et ti ng wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e dr ug s, th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e: (1 ) th at th e de fen da nt as s oc ia te d hi m se lf wit h th e un la wfu l ve nt ur e; (2 ) t h a t he pa rti ci pa te d in it as
so m et hi ng he wis he d to br in g ab ou t; an d (3 ) th at he so ug h t by hi s act io ns to m ak e it su ccee d.

-1 1-Sa nt an a , 5 24 F.3 d at 85 3 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at e s v

. M c C r a c ken , 1 10 F.3 d 53 5, 54 0 (8 th Cir . 19 97 )).

Bro wn arg ue s th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m of po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, cl ai m in g t ha t h e “ ne ve r kn owi ng ly pos se ss ed 50 gra m s o r m or e of m et ha m

ph et am in e.” App el la nt ’s Br. at 38

. Bro wn cl ai m s he was no t aware th at th e
pa ck ag e he pi ck ed up an d br ou gh t in si de th e res id en ce co n t a i n e d 10 0 gr am s of

m et ha m ph et am in e. Bro wn’s arg um en t fai ls
, be cau se “ in an ai di ng -an d- ab et ti ng cas e, th e g ov ern m en t is no t requ ire d to pr ov e th at th e d efen da nt po ss es se d t he co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e” an d “ kn owi ng po ss es si on

. . . i s no t an ele m en t o f ai di ng -an d- ab et ti ng .”
Sa nt an a , 52 4 F .3d at 8 54

.

As di sc us se d in Part II.B.1
, th e e v i d e n c e pr es en te d at tri al su pp or te d th e
go ve rn m en t’s th eo ry th at Bro wn was as si st in g Fen ne ll wit h hi s dr ug di st rib ut io n
op erat io n. The ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al al so su pp or te d th e go ve rn m en t’s arg um en t th at Fen ne ll di rect ed a dr ug di st rib ut io n op erat io n. To th e ex te nt th at Bro wn pr ot ect ed

an d su pp or te d Fen n e l l
, Bro wn “ as so ci at ed hi m se lf wit h [an ] un la wfu l ve nt ur e,
pa rti ci pa te d in it as so m et hi ng he wis he d to br in g ab ou t, an d so ug ht by hi s act io ns to

m ak e it su ccee d” —re ga rd le ss of hi s kn owl ed ge ab ou t th e pa ck ag e’s co n t e n t

. I d. at 85 5. Fu rth erm or e, th e go ve rn m en t p r e s e n te d ev id en ce to su gg es t th at Bro wn kn ow in gl y po ss es se d th e 10 0 gr am s o f m et ha m ph et am in e in si de th e pa ck ag e. Mo st rel ev an tl y , In sp ect or Farm er te st ifi ed to Bro wn’s “ co un te rs ur ve il la nc e m an eu ve r” aft er th e pa ck ag e was le ft on th e do or st ep ; th is m an eu ve r su gg es ts Bro wn was aware of th e p ack ag e’s co nt en t. Tri al Tr., Day 1, at 42

.

In li gh t of thi s evi de nc e, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t err in de nyin g Bro wn’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on th e po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e ch arg e.

-1 2-C. Pho to gr ap hs

Evi de nc e of a cri m e, wro ng , or ot he r act is no t ad m is si bl e to pr o ve a pe rs on ’s ch arac te r i n o r d e r to sh ow th at on a pa rti cu la r oc cas io n th e pe rs on act ed in acco rd an ce wit h th e ch arac te r. W e rev ie w a ch al le ng ed Ru le 40 4( b) de ci si on fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n an d rev ers e on ly whe n su ch

ev id en ce cl earl y

ha d no be ari ng on th e cas e an d was in tro du ced so le ly to pro ve th e d efen da nt ’s pro pe ns it y to co m m it cri m in al act s.

Uni te d St at es v. Pay ne -Owen s , 84 5 F.3 d 86 8, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns

om it te d)

.

“ W e reco gn iz e [th at ]

. . . ge ne ral ev id en ce as to ga ng cu lt ur e, ai m ed at si m pl y

es ta bl is hi ng a vi ol en t or la wles s cu lt ur e, i s o f t e n un du ly pr ejud ic ia l an d can be irr el ev an t.” Id

. at 87 3 (cl ean ed up ). The refo re, th e go ve rn m en t m ay no t “ rel en tl es sl y
at te m pt to co nv ic t [a de fen da nt ] by arg ui ng gu il t by as so ci at io n.” Id

. at 87 4. Howev er,

“ [s ]peci fic an d ci rcu m sc rib ed ev id en ce of ga ng as so ci at io n m ay be ne ces sa ry in a tri al

to sh ow th e na tu re an d ex te nt of th e de fen da nt s’ as so ci at io n, whic h in tu rn be ars on whe th er th ey co ns pi red .” Uni te d S t a t e s v. Jo hn so n , 28 F.3 d 14 87
, 14 97 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (cl ean ed up ).

Bro wn ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it ph ot og rap hs o f hi m

so ci al iz in g wit h cert ai n co co ns pi rat or s. He cl ai m s th e ph ot og rap hs de pi ct ga ng si gn s

an d th eref

or e un fai rly pr ejud ic ed hi m ; on th is ba si s, he cal ls fo r a ne w tri al

. Bro wn’s
arg um en t i s wi th ou t m eri t.

Pri or to tri al
, Bro wn fil ed a m ot io n in li m in e as ki ng th e di st ric t co ur t to ba r th e
go ve rn m en t fro m pr es en ti ng ev id en ce of hi s ga ng affi li at io n. The di st r i c t co ur t
gr an te d hi s m ot io n in pa rt an d pr oh ib it ed th e go ve rn m en t fro m rai si ng Bro wn’s ga ng affi li at io n. At tri al
, ho wev er, th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed to in tro du ce cert ai n ph ot og rap hs of Bro wn an d hi s co co ns pi rat or s. One ph ot og rap h sh ows Bro wn, Fen ne ll
, an d ot he r

-1 3-co co ns pi rat or s dr in ki ng aro un d a ta bl e in si de th e res id en ce, an ot he r sh ows Bro wn in

a can oe , an d a th ird sh ows hi m se at ed on an ai rp la ne

. W hi le th e ph ot og rap hs do sh ow in di vi du al s mak in g ha nd ge st ur es , th ere is no th in g se lf- ev id en tl y co nn ect in g th es e
ge st ur es to ga ng s in ge ne ral or an y ga ng in pa rti cu la r, an d th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ced

no ev id en ce su gg es ti ng su ch a co nn ect io n. Neit he r di d th e go ve rn m en t r e f e r t o Bro wn’s ga ng affi li at io n at tri a l

. Co ns id eri ng th at we ha ve pr ev io us ly up he ld a di st ric t co u r t ’s de ci si on to al lo w te st im on y af fi rma ti vel

y es ta bl is hi ng de fen da nt s’
ga ng m em

be rs hi p, whe re su ch m em be rs hi p was no t “ th e en ti re th em e of th e tri al ,” id

. at 14 9 7
, B ro wn’s m ere sp ecu la ti on s ab ou t ho w th e jury po te nt ia ll y in te rp ret ed th e ph ot og rap hs is in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh pre jud ic e.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ad m it ti n g t h e ph ot og rap hs
, an d th ei r in tro du ct io n d oe s n ot pro vi de a ba si s fo r a n ew tr ia l.

D. Min or Rol e Red uc ti on A two -le ve l “ m in or pa rti ci pa nt ad jus tm en t ap pl ie s to a de fen da nt who is les s

cu lp ab le th an m os t ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s .

. . . W he th er a de fen da nt pl ay ed a m in or ro le is a qu es ti on of fact rev ie wed fo r c l e a r e r r o r

. The bu rd en of pr oo f res ts wit h th e de fen da nt to pro ve th at he pl ay ed a m in or rol e.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Br ad le y , 64 3 F .3d
11 21 , 11 28 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (cl ean ed up ).

[W]h il e rel at iv e cu lp ab il it y of co ns pi rat or s is rel ev an t to th e m in or pa rti ci pa nt de te rm in at io n, ou r cas es m ak e it cle ar t ha t m erel y sh owi ng th e de fen da nt was le ss cu lp ab le th an ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s is no t en ou gh to

en ti tl e th e de fen da nt to th e ad jus tm en t if th e de fe n d an t was de ep ly in vo lv ed in th e o ffen se

.

Id

. at 11 29 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

Here, th e ev i d e n c e pr es en te d at tri al su gg es te d th at Bro wn bo th pr ov id ed

pr ot ect io n to Fen ne ll an d hi s dr ug tra ffi ck in g op erat io n an d en ga ge d in d r ug

-1 4-pu rch as in g an d di st rib ut io n hi m se lf. W hi le Bro wn m ay ha ve be en le ss in vo lv ed th en

ot he r m em

be rs of th e co ns pi racy, th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e di st ric t co ur t
to fin d th at Bro wn’s ro le was m or e th an m in or

. Bro wn “ was an act iv e pa rti ci pa nt in th e co ns pi racy .

. . an d th eref or e th e co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in de te rm in in g he was

no t a m in or pa rti ci pa nt

. W e affi rm th e co ur t’s rejecti on of th e two -le ve l re du ct io n.” Id

.

III. Co nc lu si on Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m Bro wn’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e.

STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d c on cu rri ng in th e jud gm en t.

The of fic ers who se arch ed th e ho us e rel ie d in go od fai th on a va li dl y is su ed an d faci a l l y reas on ab le an ti ci pa to ry se arch warra nt , so ev en if th e tri gg eri ng co nd it io n

was ov erl y br oa d an d fai le d to es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau se un de r th e un us ua l fact s of th is

cas e, Bro wn is no t en ti tl ed to su pp res si on

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Leo n , 46 8 U.S. 89 7, 9 2 2 ( 1 9 84 ); Uni te d St at es v. Li ves ay , 98 3 F.2 d 13 5, 13 7– 38 (8 th Ci r. 19 9 3 )

. Acco rd in gl y , I co nc ur an d jo in all bu t Pa rt I I.A of t he co ur t’s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-