United States v. Darrell Spicer
707 F. App'x 178
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Darrell Spicer pled guilty pursuant to a conditional plea to possession with intent to distribute heroin, reserving the right to appeal denial of his pre-plea motions.
- Spicer moved to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence based on alleged outrageous government conduct surrounding a controlled buy.
- The Kanawha County Sheriff’s Office used a confidential informant (CI) for a controlled drug purchase; the CI drove to the transaction despite having a revoked driver’s license.
- Spicer argued the Sheriff’s Office failed to check the CI’s criminal record, caused the CI to breach an informant contract (which prohibited law violations), and that the affiant mischaracterized the CI’s role in the affidavit.
- The district court denied Spicer’s motions; the Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial of suppression and dismissal de novo (fact findings for clear error) and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government conduct was so outrageous to require dismissal on due process grounds | Spicer: Allowing CI to drive on a revoked license, failing to screen CI, and coercing law violations was outrageous and violated due process | Government: Conduct did not shock the conscience and did not violate any of Spicer's protected rights | Court: Not outrageous; conduct did not rise to due process violation and dismissal not warranted |
| Whether evidence was tainted by CI's unlicensed driving or misstatements in the affidavit, requiring suppression | Spicer: Evidence from the buy and subsequent search warrant is tainted by the CI’s illegal driving and alleged misrepresentation | Government: The CI’s driving and affidavit language did not taint the evidence or violate Spicer’s rights | Court: No taint; evidence admissible and suppression improperly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hill, 852 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Hasan, 718 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for dismissing indictments for outrageous government conduct)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (government conduct can warrant dismissal in extraordinary cases)
- United States v. Osborne, 935 F.2d 32 (4th Cir. 1991) (example of extreme government manipulation not requiring dismissal here)
- United States v. Goodwin, 854 F.2d 33 (4th Cir. 1988) (due process violation requires conduct that is outrageous, not merely offensive)
- Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) (due process limits apply when a defendant’s protected rights are violated)