United States v. Eric Powell
847 F.3d 760
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA investigation (2010) into large-scale Detroit narcotics operation identified Carlos Powell ("50") via cooperating source; surveillance included cell-site/location warrants, a cell-site simulator, a GPS device on Eric Powell’s truck, and video cameras on utility poles.
- Multiple traffic stops (June–October 2010) yielded substantial drugs and cash (including $2.2M and $2M seizures); nine search warrants executed Nov. 17, 2010 recovered drugs, guns, vehicles, jewelry, and over $3M from residences.
- Carlos Powell, Eric Powell, and Earnest Proge tried together, convicted on conspiracy, substantive drug counts, firearms, and money-laundering counts; Proge acquitted on one count (Count 3) but convicted on others; defendants fled during jury deliberations but were recaptured.
- Pretrial suppression motions challenged: (1) collection of real-time CSLI/GPS location data under warrants; (2) use of a cell-site simulator to identify unknown phones via pen-register/trap-and-trace orders; (3) warrantless GPS vehicle tracking (pre-Jones); and (4) pole-mounted public video surveillance.
- Sixth Amendment claims: Carlos Powell sought to proceed pro se (Faretta); Earnest Proge sought substitution of retained counsel (claimed breakdown in relationship). District court denied Powell’s Faretta motion and denied (in part) Proge’s motion to withdraw counsel; on appeal, court affirmed suppression rulings but vacated Proge’s convictions for counsel-of-choice error and remanded for limited further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CSLI/real-time cell-location warrants | Warrants were supported by probable cause or, alternatively, officers relied on them in good faith | Warrants lacked probable cause; selective omissions rendered Leon inapplicable; overbroad | Affirms: probable-cause analysis sufficient or Leon good-faith exception applies; no Franks showing of material omission |
| Use of cell-site simulator under pen-register orders | Statutory mechanism and prior practice authorized identification of device identifiers; not a Fourth Amendment search | Statute does not authorize capture of autonomously transmitted identifiers absent communication; statutory violation warrants suppression | Affirms: defendants did not assert Fourth Amendment violation; statutory violation does not automatically trigger exclusionary remedy; evidence admissible |
| Warrantless GPS tracking (pre-Jones) | Officers reasonably relied on then-binding precedent allowing warrantless vehicle tracking; Leon/Davis good-faith exception applies | Tracking violated Fourth Amendment; derivative stops tainted | Affirms: good-faith reliance on binding precedent makes exclusion inappropriate |
| Pole-mounted public video surveillance | Public-vantage observations lawful; no reasonable expectation of privacy in areas visible from public vantage points | Long-term, continuous surveillance was intrusive and violated expectation of privacy | Affirms: surveillance mirrored what passersby could see (Houston/Miller line); no suppression |
| Faretta/self-representation (Carlos Powell) | Government supported reconsideration (proposed standby counsel) but argued district court’s denial appropriate given timing and perceived gamesmanship | Powell knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel to file Moorish Science Temple documents and proceed pro se | Affirmed denial: court found request not in good faith (tactical, last-minute premised on filing frivolous documents) and conducted required colloquy; denial upheld |
| Right to substitute counsel (Earnest Proge) | Court must balance timeliness and public interest; district court’s calendar control justified limiting substitution | Complete breakdown of communication; retained counsel unprepared/unwilling to try case; request timely and adequate inquiry required | Reversed in part: district court abused discretion by permitting one retained counsel to withdraw but forcing Proge to proceed with the other; violation of counsel-of-choice requires vacatur and remand |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (Proge) | Evidence (surveillance, transfers, cash, flight, statements) supports conspiracies, possession, and money-laundering convictions | Defendant argued only association, not participation; claimed insufficient proof of possession/aiding | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for Counts 1, 2, 8, and 10; judgment corrected to reflect acquittal on Count 3; retrial not precluded on affirmed counts |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (requirement to show deliberate/reckless omissions to obtain Franks hearing)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self-representation and required waiver inquiry)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (GPS placement on vehicle constitutes a search)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing statutory maximum must be proven to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be proved to jury)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause—fair probability standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (right to counsel of choice is structural error)
- Houston v. United States, 813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. decision upholding warrantless pole-camera surveillance from public vantage)