Opinion ID: 2648112
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legitimate Law Enforcement Activity

Text: Wells asserts the evidence as to his efforts to encourage Joker to sell methamphetamine in Tulsa was insufficient to support his drug-based convictions. Instead, according to Wells, the evidence presented at trial is perfectly consistent with legitimate police conduct. Like the district court, we conclude this claim is meritless. -24- In rejecting Wells’s request for judgment of acquittal, the district court considered this exact argument. In concluding the jury was not obligated, as a matter of law, to find Wells’s actions were consistent with legitimate police conduct, the district court ruled as follows: [Wells’s] final argument is that he was merely engaged in legitimate law enforcement activities by agreeing to overlook certain drug transactions in order to attain a more important objective. He points out that the Tenth Circuit has specifically stated that law enforcement officers must be given leeway to complete several transactions with a suspect, in order to “probe the depth and extent of a criminal enterprise, to determine whether coconspirators exist, and to trace the drug deeper into the distribution hierarchy.” United States v. Scull, 321 F.3d 1270, 1277 (10th Cir. 2003). This is a legitimate argument, and one that [Wells] was able to make to the jury. [20] The jury, however, rejected it, and there was evidence supporting the jury’s decision. This evidence included wiretaps indicating [Wells] had no plans to trace Joker’s suppliers, to use Joker for any “larger” purpose, or to arrest Joker at the end of a series of transactions. Instead, there was evidence [Wells] and Gray agreed with Joker to facilitate Joker’s sale of methamphetamine in Tulsa, allowing certain of his customers to walk off with a substantial amount of methamphetamine while they arrested only one and allowed Joker to leave with his proceeds. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the jury could determine that Gray and [Wells] agreed to help Joker, a major supplier of methamphetamine, to operate in Tulsa while arresting only a more minor player, one of his customers. This is not an 20 In his closing argument, Wells argued as follows: Harold Wells was trying to do his job. And if this guy is bringing dope into Tulsa, Oklahoma, he wants to stop him. . . . This guy says he’s moving five to ten pounds. You need to know where that’s coming from, you need to know how it’s there, but you’ve got to do it slowly. You can’t come up and say, “Hey, where are you getting all this dope? We want to arrest you.” -25- example of legitimate law enforcement activity. See, e.g., [United States] v. Ohlson, 552 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1977) (upholding conspiracy conviction on very similar facts). District Ct. Order of Aug. 23, 2011, Docket No. 271, at 4-5. Having reviewed the entire record, this court has no difficulty concluding there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that Wells was not engaging in legitimate police practices but was, instead, engaging in a criminal conspiracy. In addition to the cogent analysis set out by the district court, we note that Wells has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for conspiring to and stealing government funds. As set out in the indictment, the basis for these charges was the theft of cash from Joker’s room at the Super 8 Motel. The evidence surrounding the theft of those funds surely provided the jury a sufficient basis to infer that Wells’s and Gray’s motivation in developing a relationship with Joker was to maintain a steady supply of drug dealers from which they could potentially steal cash and drugs. 21 As further support for this inference, Wells and Gray told Joker they could charge him with possession of methamphetamine, but would forbear if Joker agreed to 21 In that same vein, Gray testified that after the cash was stolen from Joker’s room, the conspirators became fearful they were being set up when a federal agent was stopped in a parking lot close to the Super 8 Motel. In response, the conspirators returned the stolen money and concocted a story that it had been parceled out so it could be taken to a drug dog to see if the dog would alert. Both the fear of being entwined in a federal sting operation and the development of a false cover story are highly indicative of consciousness of guilt. -26- set up drug dealers in the Tulsa area. McDoulett’s understanding of this “arrangement” was that he was to bring an additional load of drugs to Tulsa in the future and then allow Gray and Wells to arrest one, and only one, of his multiple customers. As to all other customers, Joker could conduct “business” 22 as usual without law enforcement interference. In this regard, McDoulett testified as follows about a discussion that took place while only Gray and Wells were present in the motel room with him: Q. Do Wells and Gray discuss with you the possibility of criminal charges being filed against you? A. Yes, they tell me that I will be charged with possession of narcotics and possession of drug proceeds based on the residue that they found in the Crown Royal bag. Q. Did [they] tell you about a way you could get out of being charged with criminal conduct? A. Yes. That was the conversation where they discussed me cooperating with them by bringing up another load of methamphetamine from Dallas to Tulsa. . . . Q. Okay. And what did you understand your responsibility would be if you accepted this arrangement to bring a load back to Tulsa, what was going to happen? A. That I would bring my load to Tulsa and allow the—Officer Gray and Officer Wells to arrest one of the people that would buy methamphetamine from me. 22 Wiretap evidence admitted at trial demonstrate Gray and Wells planned to permit Joker to continue trafficking and selling drugs without fear of intervention because it was his “livelihood”; they repeatedly referred to the drug endeavor as “business.” -27- Q. Just one of the people? A. That was my understanding. Q. Were there going to be additional people that you would have sold to, though? A. Absolutely. Q. So the nature of your agreement with them was that you would come back to Tulsa, bring a load of methamphetamine, and allow them to arrest one of your multiple customers, correct? A. That’s correct. Q. And with respect to the other customers that weren’t arrested, what was your understanding of your arrangement with Officers Wells and Gray that night? A. That I could conduct business as usual. Q. What did “conduct business as usual” mean? A. Arrange to sell whatever amount the client would usually purchase from me. Q. What about the money generated from the sale of those drugs to the other customers? A. That would not be involved in the arrest of the other individual. The other individual, the person would be arrested, obviously with drugs, and I would not be able to profit from that transaction. They would take my profit. Furthermore, Wells and Gray actively advised Joker on how best to traffic drugs and avoid arrest. All the while, neither Wells nor Gray ever alerted anyone at the Tulsa Police Department or the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office that they -28- were using Joker in an official capacity as a confidential informant. 23 On these facts, a rational basis clearly exists for the jury’s guilty verdicts as to the drug charges. After all, “[t]he evidence necessary to support a verdict need not conclusively exclude every other reasonable hypothesis and need not negate all possibilities except guilt. Instead, the evidence only has to reasonably support the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Davis, 437 F.3d 989, 993 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted).