United States v. Damon Goodrich
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 414
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Three-count indictment: felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1); possession with intent to distribute marijuana (Count 2); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 3).
- Police investigated a May 21, 2009 break-in; burglars used the house, leading to discoveries of firearms, marijuana, cash, and other drug-trafficking paraphernalia.
- Goodrich lived at the house; police performed a protective sweep based on exigent circumstances and later obtained consent to search.
- DNA evidence from a gun was contested for laboratory reliability, but admissibility was not challenged; fingerprint evidence was unavailable.
- A grand jury returned the three-count indictment; trial followed with guilty verdicts on all counts; sentence: 33 months Counts 1–2 and 90 months Count 3, consecutive.
- Goodrich challenged suppression of evidence and argued insufficiency of evidence and substantive reasonableness of sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective sweep/search violated the Fourth Amendment | Goodrich; consent coerced; duress invalidates consent | State; exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry and scope | No Fourth Amendment violation; exigent circumstances supported entry and scope of sweep |
| Whether the consent search was valid | Consent coerced or obtained under threat | District court found valid consent; no threats proved | Consent valid; suppression denied |
| Whether the evidence suffices to prove Counts 1–2 and 3 | Defendant lacked proof of possession | Evidence showed dwelling, control, proximity to drugs and firearms | Evidence sufficient for Counts 1–3; reasonable jury could find guilt |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable, especially Count 3 variance | Plea offer and lower pretrial sentence suggest overreach | Court correctly varied up based on history and risk; substantial evidence | Sentence within sound discretion; not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hogan, 539 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2008) (deference to district court on suppression findings; clear error review)
- United States v. Atwine, 873 F.2d 1144 (8th Cir. 1989) (exigent circumstances justify warrantless entry)
- United States v. Hines, 387 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2004) (consent searches; validity depends on explicit facts)
- United States v. Brown, 634 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 2011) (possession can be constructive; dwelling/control supports inference of possession)
- United States v. Parker, 587 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2009) (constructive possession and control through dominion over premises)