United States v. Dixon
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8554
1st Cir.2015Background
- Police detective filed affidavits seeking warrants to search Samuel Dixon’s person and 12 York St., Apt. 1 for drugs based on a confidential informant (CI) and controlled buys.
- CI gave identifying details (phone number, red Ford SUV) and completed three controlled purchases of suspected crack cocaine; officers observed the suspect traveling between the meet locations and 12 York St. for two buys.
- Detective Ross corroborated the CI’s information: license/utility records tied Dixon to Apt. 1, the Ford’s registration listed Dixon, the CI identified Dixon from a photo, and the CI’s phone number routed to Dixon’s voicemail.
- Warrants issued and executed; after being stopped, Dixon told officers there were drugs in his dresser and a gun in a toilet or closet; officers then found drugs, drug paraphernalia, a pistol, and ammunition.
- Dixon moved to suppress (and for a Franks hearing), district court denied suppression and Franks; drug charge was later dismissed and Dixon was convicted at trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of warrant affidavit for probable cause to search person and apartment | Affidavit established CI reliability and probable cause; warrants valid | Dixon: affidavit insufficiently detailed about CI reliability, commission, and nexus; no field test of drugs | Court affirmed: totality of circumstances (CI reliability, controlled buys, corroboration, officer experience) supported probable cause |
| Nexus between residence and drug evidence | Government: controlled buys and surveillance tied Dixon’s operations to Apt. 1 | Dixon: no observed carrying to/from building or other drug-related activity at residence | Court held nexus satisfied given corroboration, observed travel to/from Apt. 1 after buys |
| Admissibility of Dixon’s statements made during execution | Government: statements voluntary and not tainted because probable cause existed | Dixon: statements are tainted fruits of illegal arrest/search | Court rejected Dixon’s cursory claim because probable cause existed |
| Interstate-commerce element of § 922(g)(1) charge and jury instructions | Government: minimal nexus satisfied by evidence gun/ammo were manufactured out of state | Dixon: challenges sufficiency and jury instruction on interstate-commerce element | Court followed precedent (Corey/Scarborough): showing firearm crossed state lines at some point is sufficient; instruction correct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-circumstances test for informant tips)
- United States v. Feliz, 182 F.3d 82 (probable cause and nexus analysis for residence searches)
- United States v. Greenburg, 410 F.3d 63 (informant credibility factors)
- United States v. Genao, 281 F.3d 305 (value of properly conducted controlled buys)
- United States v. Tiem Trinh, 665 F.3d 1 (crediting law enforcement expertise re: informant and modus operandi)
- Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (minimal nexus requirement for § 922(g))
- United States v. Corey, 207 F.3d 84 (First Circuit precedent on interstate-commerce element for § 922(g))