Opinion ID: 2671702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Drug Evidence

Text: According to Mr. Thomas, the drug evidence was inadmissible because the government failed to establish an adequate chain of custody. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 27-29. He argues in his opening brief that the government did not establish a chain of custody to and from the laboratory (Kansas Bureau of Investigation). Id. at 28. In his reply brief, he argues that L.H. had stolen some of the cocaine base. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 3. We review the district court’s admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528, 1530 (10th Cir. 1989). “A chain of custody 8 indirectly establishes the identity and integrity of the evidence by tracing its continuous whereabouts.” United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 374 (10th Cir. 1985). When the evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to tampering or contamination— which is the case with cocaine—the government must show a “‘‘chain of custody’ of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.’” Cardenas, 864 F.2d at 1531 (quoting Edward Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 212, at 668 (3d ed. 1984)). The trial court may admit the evidence if it “is substantially in the same condition as when the crime was committed.” Id. Admissibility does not require a perfect chain of custody. United States v. Smith, 534 F.3d 1211, 1225 (10th Cir. 2008). When the chain is imperfect, deficiencies bear on the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Id. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the drug exhibits into evidence. Officer Kim Hanika testified that she had received the crack cocaine from L.H. immediately after each buy, packaged it, put on a label and badge number, and checked the item into the property room. III R. at 27-29, 33-35, 47-51. The officer added that she later took or caused the drugs to be taken to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation for analysis. Id. at 29, 35, 50. When the Bureau finished its analysis, the drugs were returned to Officer Hanika or her agent. Id. She then had the drugs taken to the property room. Id. at 35. From there, Officer Hanika brought the drugs to court. Id. at 50. These actions entail a nine-step chain of custody: 9 1 2 3 • Thomas to L.H. • L.H. to Hanika • Hanika to Property Room 6 5 4 • KBI to Hanika • Hanika to KBI • Property Room to Hanika 7 8 9 • Hanika to • Property Room • Hanika to Property Room to Hanika Courthouse Of the nine steps in the chain, Mr. Thomas focuses on the first, second, fifth, sixth, and ninth steps. The first two steps involve L.H.’s role in obtaining the drugs and handing them to Officer Hanika. The fifth and sixth steps involve Officer Hanika’s role in causing the drugs to be sent to and from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. The ninth step involved taking the drugs to the courthouse. The first two steps were adequately supported for purposes of admissibility. L.H. testified that she had obtained the drugs from Mr. Thomas and given them to Officer Hanika. Id. at 137-38. This testimony was corroborated by Officer Hanika. Id. at 26, 29, 34, 48-49. From this evidence, the district judge could reasonably conclude that L.H. probably had not tampered with the drugs that she turned over to Officer Hanika. 10 Mr. Thomas questions this conclusion based on L.H.’s admission that she had kept some of the cocaine base. We disagree. Though L.H. admitted that she had taken some of the drugs, those drugs were never given to Officer Hanika or introduced into evidence. As a result, the district judge could reasonably discount the possibility that L.H. had tampered with the drugs that were ultimately given to Officer Hanika. In addition, Mr. Thomas challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at the fifth and sixth steps. These challenges are rejected. Officer Hanika testified that she had taken the drugs from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation or had them taken there. Id. at 33. The officer added that when the testing was finished, she sent the drugs back to the property room. Id. Mr. Thomas argues that Officer Hanika did not provide an “explanation . . . for such transportation.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 28. But Mr. Thomas has not suggested any possibility for tampering with the drug exhibits, for they remained identifiable based on Officer Hanika’s labeling. See United States v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1360, 1368 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that a chain of custody was sufficient when an officer testified that he “either gave [the physical evidence] to an OSBI chemist or to another agent who relayed them to the chemist”). Finally, Mr. Thomas states, without any explanation or support, that the government did not present a chain of custody “from the lab [Kansas Bureau of Investigation] to court.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 28. Officer Hanika testified that she had personally checked the drug exhibits out of the property room and brought them to the courtroom. III R. at 33. Mr. Thomas does not suggest any deficiencies in this evidence regarding the ninth step. 11 Mr. Thomas gives little reason to suspect tampering with the drugs that were ultimately given to Officer Hanika, tested, and introduced into evidence. Without more, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion admitting the drugs into evidence. See United States v. Washington, 11 F.3d 1510, 1512, 1514 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding that the district court did not err in allowing introduction of drugs, which were obtained by a confidential informant, even though the informant had an opportunity to tamper with the drugs “because of the absence of or breaks in visual surveillance”); United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1194 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that the chain of custody was sufficient even though investigators breached their protocol by failing to search the confidential informant and failing to employ continuous surveillance of the buy). At most, the perceived deficiencies in the chain of custody would affect the “weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.” United States v. Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (10th Cir. 1989).