Testimony linked two samples of methamphetamine to a defendant and one of them to another defendant. Laboratory testing revealed that both samples were d-methamphetamine. As such, defendant should be resentenced under the guideline provisions for d-methamphetamine. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The district court correctly concluded that probable cause to suspect that a traffic violation had occurred was sufficient legal basis for both stops, regardless of any other motives the stopping officers may have had.
Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.
Viewing the course of events, the court finds nothing improper in the vehicle stop, the warrantless arrest, or the search incident to the arrest. A single conspiracy is composed of individuals sharing common purposes or objectives under one general agreement. In a drug case, the fact that different individual defendants contributed a portion of the total drugs to suppliers or participated in numerous separate transactions does not convert a single conspiracy to multiple conspiracies. Because this record does not support a theory of multiple conspiracies, the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on multiple conspiracies. A defendant must show actual prejudice before the court will reverse a denial of a motion for severance.