Opinion ID: 2978939
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Controlled Buys

Text: Pursuant to a drug trafficking investigation, the Warrick County, Indiana Sheriff’s Department executed a controlled buy between Charlie Gamble, the putative buyer and a police informant, and Eric Rice and Kenneth Yancy, the sellers, on February 3, 2005. Rice and Yancy were arrested after the buy. When interviewed, Yancy stated that earlier that day he and Rice had accompanied Germaine White, a convicted drug dealer, to Logan’s Madisonville, Kentucky 1 The indictment charged the following counts: Logan, Mitchell, and others conspired to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (count one); Logan knowingly and intentionally possessed with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (counts two and three); Logan and Mitchell aided and abetted each other by knowingly and intentionally possessing crack cocaine, cocaine, and marijuana with intent to distribute (counts four, five, and six); Mitchell knowingly and intentionally possessed more than five grams of crack cocaine (count seven); Logan and Mitchell aided and abetted each other by knowingly using and maintaining a residence for the purpose of distributing and using cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) (count eight); Logan possessed a firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crimes alleged in counts one through five and in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(I) (count nine); and forfeiture counts regarding the firearm, ammunition, and the proceeds and property relating the charged drug crimes (counts ten and eleven). Count two was dismissed prior to trial. -2- Nos. 07-6126, 09-5636 United States v. Logan residence, where White purchased a half-ounce of cocaine from Logan. According to Yancy, White gave the cocaine to Rice and Yancy and instructed them to deliver it to Gamble in Indiana and to collect payment on his behalf. This information was passed on to the Madisonville police. Under police surveillance, Yancy bought crack cocaine from Logan at his residence on February 9, 2005. Yancy exited the house after the transaction was complete and relinquished the drugs to Detective Lantrip, who later processed the evidence before placing it in the evidence room run by evidence technician Brian McKinney.2 Officers executed a search warrant at the residence. They seized powder cocaine; crack cocaine, including a “crack cookie”; several pounds of marijuana in plastic garbage bags; marijuana seeds; several sets of digital scales; $5139 in cash; plastic bags; and a Beretta handgun. The officers took pictures of the evidence at the crime scene, and McKinney and Officer Robert Carter brought the evidence back to the police department. The officers and McKinney photographed and processed the evidence, after which it was stored it in the evidence room. Five days after the raid, McKinney delivered the drug evidence to the KSP laboratory for testing. After federal officials decided to prosecute the case, ATF Agent Jay Espinola took custody of the physical evidence from McKinney at the evidence room on February 13, 2005. McKinney transferred all the requested evidence on that date to Espinola, except for a portion of money 2 According to trial testimony, McKinney photographed the evidence in the presence of Lantrip. McKinney wrote the case number, suspect’s name, time, and date on the evidence bag, placed the evidence in it, and sealed it. The sealed bag was housed in the evidence room in a locker until it was transferred to the laboratory for chemical analysis, or, as also occurred in this case, to federal officials in connection with a federal criminal prosecution. -3- Nos. 07-6126, 09-5636 United States v. Logan ($3000), a fact Espinola only noticed later. He returned to the evidence room and recovered this sum. Subsequently, when comparing the bills in his possession with photographs of bills at the crime scene, he discovered that the serial numbers on the bills did not all match. However, he maintained that he eventually “received the right amount.” In addition, he stated that the gun’s serial number—unique to each—matched the serial number of the gun photographed at the crime scene.