United States v. Gaines
639 F.3d 423
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Gaines and Dubose were indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine; Gaines pled guilty and testified against Dubose.
- Dubose moved to suppress wiretap recordings arguing Fourth Amendment lack of particularity because 'others unknown' were not identified in the initial application/order.
- The government obtained three Title III wiretap orders targeting Tyson, Gaines, and later Dubose, intercepting multiple calls, including 15 pertinent calls between Tyson and Dubose.
- At trial Gaines testified; the PSR and trial evidence showed Gaines controlled and distributed cocaine; the district court applied a three-level U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b) manager/supervisor enhancement to Gaines, then sentenced him to 144 months after a downward departure.
- Dubose was convicted of conspiracy; the district court denied suppression; Gaines challenged the enhancement and Dubose challenged suppression; the Eighth Circuit consolidated and affirmed both judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gaines was properly found to be a manager or supervisor | Gaines argues no control over others and thus no 3B1.1(b) enhancement. | Gaines acknowledges extensive conduct; argues improper factual basis for control. | The district court's managerial role finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether Dubose's Fourth Amendment suppression was proper due to lack of particularity | Dubose contends intent to overhear Dubose was not adequately described. | Dubose argues Title III and Fourth Amendment considerations require greater specificity. | Affirmed suppression denial; Fourth Amendment particularity satisfied by identifying the line and conversations to be seized. |
| Relation between Fourth Amendment and Title III particularity standards | Gaines contends Title III standards equal Fourth Amendment particularity. | Dubose argues Fourth Amendment requiring more specificity than Title III. | Court held Fourth Amendment particularity differs from Title III; identification of line and conversations suffices under Fourth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court 1967) ( Fourth Amendment particularity concerns in wiretaps)
- Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 (Supreme Court 1974) (identification required when probable cause to believe individual committing offense)
- Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court 1977) (wiretap identification may be satisfied by targeting line and conversations)
- Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir. 1988) (Title III standards co-extensive with constitutional standards)
- Vasquez-Rubio, 552 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2009) (manager/supervisor analysis factors and close questions)
- Rosas, 486 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2007) (non-exhaustive list of factors for role-enhancement analysis)
- García-Hernández, 530 F.3d 657 (8th Cir. 2008) (burden of proof for manager/supervisor enhancement)
- Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court 1977) (reiterates particularization standard for wiretap applications)