Opinion ID: 621485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Arkansas State Police (ASP) investigators received information that individuals were purchasing crack cocaine in Strong, Arkansas, and traveling back to Crossett, Arkansas, to distribute it. During the investigation, a confidential informant (CI) notified investigators that Harrison had driven to Strong in an SUV to purchase crack cocaine. ASP Investigator Scott Russell and Detective Shelby Hughes of the Crossett Police Department (collectively, investigators) were positioned on Highway 82 in an unmarked ASP truck, and two ASP troopers were positioned along Highway 82 at different locations in marked patrol units conducting surveillance. After a short wait, the investigators spotted Harrison driving an SUV on Highway 82 leaving Strong, Arkansas, as the CI had described. The investigators noticed another occupant in Harrison's vehicle. They verified that Harrison's driver's license was suspended and began to follow him in an unmarked police truck. While the investigators were following Harrison, they observed him make a U-turn in the highway and pull alongside a parked vehicle on the shoulder of the highway. The investigators continued down Highway 82 past Harrison's stopped vehicle for about a mile and waited. After several minutes, Harrison continued down Highway 82, and the investigators resumed their surveillance. While following Harrison, they began filming Harrison's vehicle in the event that any objects were thrown from it. On a prior occasion, when officers attempted to stop Harrison's vehicle, a suspected amount of narcotics was thrown from the vehicle. But no narcotics were recovered on that occasion. As the investigators were following Harrison, they passed ASP Trooper Clayton Moss in a marked patrol unit, who -2- notified them that he clocked Harrison traveling 65 or 66 miles per hour in a 55-mileper-hour zone. Thereafter, the investigators observed Harrison's vehicle veer completely across the fog line. At that time, the investigators notified ASP Trooper David Tumey, who was in a marked patrol unit, to stop Harrison for the observed traffic violations. Investigator Russell believed that probable cause existed to stop Harrison's vehicle based on the traffic violations and Harrison's driving on a suspended license. As Trooper Tumey began the traffic stop, the investigators observed an object thrown from the passenger-side window of Harrison's vehicle. This act, coupled with the information that the CI provided, suggested drug activity to Investigator Russell. Trooper Tumey stopped the car. Meanwhile, the investigators retrieved the object thrown from the car—a baggy of crack cocaine. After receiving Miranda warnings, Harrison admitted that he drove his passenger to Strong to buy crack cocaine. Harrison was indicted for aiding and abetting the knowing possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of a mixture or substance containing crack cocaine, in violation of §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii). Harrison moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause. At the suppression hearing, the district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the officers had probable cause to stop Harrison based on speeding and driving on a suspended license. Additionally, the court found that the officers had a reasonable suspicion of drug activity once they observed the drugs being thrown from the vehicle. Harrison then pleaded guilty pursuant to an unconditional plea agreement. In that agreement, Harrison stipulated to certain facts, including that a passenger in the vehicle with Harrison . . . threw a bag of crack cocaine out of the window2 and that 2 Upon arrest, [the passenger] admitted to throwing the bag of crack cocaine out of the vehicle window. -3- Harrison was driving [his passenger] to Strong, Arkansas[,] for the purpose of purchasing crack cocaine. Harrison also acknowledged that the plea agreement did not promise a specific sentence. The government, in turn, agree[d] not to object to a finding by the [district] court that [Harrison] was a minimal participant in the criminal activity pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. And, it agree[d] to withdraw the sentencing enhancement previously filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851. Prior to sentencing, the probation office prepared a presentence investigation report (PSR). Harrison lodged eight objections to the PSR, including an objection to the application of the career offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Paragraph 18 of the PSR stated that Harrison had been convicted of two prior felony convictions involving controlled substance offenses. Because the instant offense involved a controlled substance offense and Harrison was 18 years or older at the time of its commission, the PSR concluded that Harrison qualified as a career offender under § 4B1.1. The enhancement raised Harrison's Guidelines offense level to 34. Harrison objected, arguing, inter alia, that application of the provision violated the Due Process Clause and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. At sentencing, the district court found that Harrison had two prior convictions involving substance offenses, making him a career offender. The district court found no constitutional violations for abuse of due process resulting from application of § 4B1.1. After crediting Harrison for acceptance of responsibility, the district court calculated a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of VI, yielding a Guidelines range of 188 to 225 months' imprisonment. The district court sentenced Harrison to 188 months' imprisonment. -4-