United States v. Coombs
857 F.3d 439
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- In October 2014 CBP intercepted a package addressed to Christopher Coombs in Maine; initial field tests detected MDMA and a synthetic cathinone identified preliminarily as alpha-PVP.
- A controlled delivery occurred; officers detained Coombs outside his residence before he brought the parcel inside; he consented to a search and was arrested.
- Officers seized electronics (computer, tablet, five cell phones) and later obtained warrants to search the phones and two e-mail accounts after Coombs, while in custody, instructed his wife to delete e-mail receipts and gave her passwords.
- DEA lab testing later identified the seized crystal as alpha-PHP (not alpha-PVP); Coombs was indicted for possession with intent to distribute alpha-PHP (a controlled-substance analogue) and obstruction for directing deletion of e-mails.
- Coombs moved to suppress (multiple motions arguing false/misleading affidavit statements, invalid consent, and involuntary Miranda waiver); district court denied four suppression motions and sentenced him to concurrent five-year terms plus a consecutive 366-day supervised-release revocation term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for warrants to search phones and e-mails | Gov't: affidavits showed package tested positive for controlled substances and Coombs accepted delivery and tried to delete e-mails | Coombs: affidavits falsely identified substance as alpha-PVP (when it was alpha-PHP), so probable cause vitiated | Denied suppression — misstatement existed but was made in good faith on preliminary test results; stripped of error affidavits still established probable cause |
| Franks challenge (reckless/knowing falsehood) | Gov't: affidavits relied on preliminary lab tests; no intentional or reckless falsehood | Coombs: misidentification was material and reckless | Denied — no evidence affiants knew or recklessly disregarded truth; reliance on available tests was reasonable |
| Voluntariness of consent to search residence | Gov't: Coombs signed consent form, was cooperative and lucid; >20 minutes elapsed after arrest | Coombs: arrested, thrown to ground, mentally ill, thus consent coerced/involuntary | Denied suppression — totality of circumstances supported voluntariness; no nexus between mental illness and coerced consent |
| Miranda waiver and admissibility of stationhouse statements | Gov't: officers read Miranda rights and Coombs verbally waived and spoke; no signed waiver required | Coombs: no written waiver or recording; mental illness undermines voluntariness | Denied suppression — oral waiver sufficient and officers' testimony credited; voluntariness supported by record |
| Sentencing: consecutive 366-day revocation term | Coombs: consecutive ordering unlawful or double-counting because same conduct underlies both convictions and revocation | Gov't: court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences; guidelines permit consecutive revocation terms | Held — district court acted within discretion; consecutive sentence lawful and not impermissible double punishment |
| Sentencing: substantive reasonableness of five-year terms | Coombs: mitigating history, health, family circumstances warrant leniency | Gov't: court considered mitigating and aggravating factors, prior leniency, need for deterrence | Held — sentence within properly computed Guidelines and district court provided plausible, defensible rationale; substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes standard for attacking affidavit veracity)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent-to-search voluntariness standard)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (oral Miranda waivers can be valid)
- United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. discussion of Franks and probable cause sufficiency)
- United States v. Ranney, 298 F.3d 74 (reckless-disregard standard for false affidavit allegations)
- United States v. Barnett, 989 F.2d 546 (officers' good-faith reliance on test results can excuse inaccuracies)
- United States v. Laine, 270 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. on consent and credibility determinations)