United States v. Davis
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8583
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Davis was convicted of robbery, use of a firearm during a robbery, and felon in possession, with total 360 months’ imprisonment and concurrent supervised release.
- Police located the getaway car via GPS on Baker’s girlfriend’s car and other sources, leading to Davis’s arrest.
- GPS device attached without a warrant; later challenged as Fourth Amendment violation under Jones.
- Evidence found in the car included clothing, a gun, and cash, tying Davis to the robbery.
- Davis argued lack of standing to challenge the vehicle search and challenged aiding-and-abetting instructions and sufficiency of evidence on interstate-commerce effects.
- Davis admitted advance knowledge of the robbery and saw the gun; government argued for aiding-and-abetting liability for § 924(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge GPS stop (4th Amendment) | Davis had standing as a vehicle occupant to challenge the stop. | Davis lacked ownership/possession/expectation of privacy in Baker’s girlfriend’s car. | Davis lacks standing; tainted evidence cannot be excluded for his benefit. |
| Aider-and-abettor instruction for § 924(c) | Instruction was vague and allowed conviction without advance gun knowledge. | Rosemond requires advance knowledge of firearm; instruction insufficient. | Plain error acknowledged but affirmed on plain-error standard; Rosemond requires advance knowledge; jury instruction adequate in context. |
| Sufficiency of evidence re interstate-commerce effect | Evidence of substantial effect on interstate commerce supported Hobbs Act conviction. | Argument foreclosed by circuit precedent. | Affirmed under applicable Hobbs Act standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS tracking can be a Fourth Amendment search; warrant may be required)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (Passenger seizure during stop implicates Fourth Amendment rights)
- Erwin v. United States, 875 F.2d 268 (10th Cir.1989) (standing to challenge stop depends on passenger’s Fourth Amendment interests)
- Eylicio-Montoya v. United States, 70 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir.1995) (pretextual stops and standing in joint stops)
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (advance knowledge required for aiding-and-abetting § 924(c) liability; recasts instruction sufficiency)
- Seslar v. United States, 996 F.2d 1058 (10th Cir.1993) (pre- Rosemond; subsequent search tainted by initial stop)
- Olivares-Rangel v. United States, 458 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir.2006) (fruit of poisonous tree doctrine requires standing to challenge the violation)