United States v. Alvin Drummond
925 F.3d 681
| 4th Cir. | 2019

Background

  • In May 2017 deputies investigated a tip that Nicholas Finley was selling meth from Room 131 at a Red Roof Inn; Finley (a known felon) answered the door and consented to deputies entering and checking the bathroom.
  • Deputies found an unidentified woman in the bathroom and an orange hypodermic needle cap; McGrath prepared an affidavit (citing the tip, Finley’s reputation, the fake paper tag on the car, multiple occupants, and the bathroom discovery) and obtained a search warrant.
  • The executed warrant yielded firearms, ammunition, meth residue, and paraphernalia; a Smith & Wesson revolver and ammunition were found in a backpack near Drummond with his paperwork and fingerprints.
  • Drummond was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he moved to suppress the evidence arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause. The district court denied suppression and a jury convicted him.
  • At sentencing the court applied the ACCA enhancement based on three prior South Carolina convictions for criminal domestic violence (CDV/CDVHAN), producing a 247‑month sentence. Drummond appealed suppression denial and the ACCA enhancement.
  • The Fourth Circuit affirmed both the denial of suppression (finding the affidavit sufficient under the totality of the circumstances) and the ACCA enhancement (holding South Carolina CDV categorically is a "violent felony" under the ACCA force clause).

Issues

Issue Drummond's Argument Government's Argument Held
Validity of search warrant / suppression Affidavit lacked probable cause; informant unnamed/unverified and corroboration was insufficient (paper tag and needle cap insufficient) Affidavit plus deputy’s corroborating observations (Finley exiting identified room, fake tag, many occupants, unidentified woman and paraphernalia in bathroom) provided probable cause Affidavit sufficient under totality of circumstances; suppression denial affirmed
Standing / ownership of backpack (alternative govt. argument) (not primary) Drummond lacked standing as social guest; alternatively abandoned backpack Court did not resolve standing/abandonment because probable cause resolved the Fourth Amendment claim
ACCA predicate: whether South Carolina CDV is a "violent felony" under §924(e)(2)(B)(i) (force clause) CDV can be based on conduct equivalent to low‑level common‑law assault (rude/offensive touching) and thus may not require violent force CDV expressly requires causing or offering to cause "physical harm or injury" with apparent present ability under circumstances creating fear of imminent peril — which meets ACCA’s "threatened use of physical force" CDV categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA; sentencing enhancement affirmed
Effect of state common‑law assault decisions on CDV analysis LaCoste and other SC cases show CDV is no different than common‑law assault; thus CDV may encompass non‑violent rude/offensive touching The CDV statutory language differs from common‑law assault and requires a threat of physical harm/injury, not mere rude touching; no South Carolina decisions show CDV convictions without harm or threat of harm Majority: CDV statute’s elements exceed common‑law assault and satisfy ACCA; dissent disagrees and would reverse on ACCA grounds

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Andrews, 577 F.3d 231 (4th Cir.) (suppression evidence standard)
  • United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357 (4th Cir.) (deference to magistrate’s probable‑cause finding)
  • United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164 (4th Cir.) (totality of circumstances test for warrants)
  • Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality of the circumstances for informant tips)
  • Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (U.S.) (rejecting divide‑and‑conquer analysis; consider whole picture)
  • United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (commonsense judgments in stop/search analysis)
  • Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2010) (defining "physical force" as violent force)
  • United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306 (4th Cir.) (categorical approach overview)
  • United States v. Hemingway, 734 F.3d 323 (4th Cir.) (divisibility and categorical approach)
  • United States v. Middleton, 883 F.3d 485 (4th Cir.) (most innocent conduct analysis)
  • United States v. Jones, 914 F.3d 893 (4th Cir.) (statutory elements comparison re: force)
  • United States v. Montes‑Flores, 736 F.3d 357 (4th Cir.) (limits of common‑law assault as a violent felony)
  • United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274 (4th Cir.) (equivalence of "crime of violence" and "violent felony" analyses)
  • Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (U.S.) (Fourth Amendment standing subsumed by merits doctrine)
  • United States v. Hodge, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir.) (procedural rule on identifying ACCA predicates at sentencing)
Read the full case