United States v. Grupee, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12600

Grupee was indicted for felon-in-possession of firearms and cocaine distribution; he pled guilty but appealed the denial of suppression and his sentence.
Task Force sought warrants to arrest Desmond Roderiques and to search 54 Bedford Street, where Grupee and others allegedly lived, for phones and related materials.
Affidavits connected a cooperating witness’s drug sale with a phone number (508-738-0346) linked to Roderiques, who occupied 54 Bedford Street.
Warrants were executed: a first warrant to search the house; a second to search the house and a car (Infiniti M45) where Grupee’s belongings were found; and a third to search the car after the dog alerted.
In Grupee’s room, guns, drugs, and paraphernalia were found; in the car, a bag with cocaine, a gym bag, a bus ticket in Grupee’s name, and 9mm ammunition were discovered.
The district court and magistrate found probable cause for the warrants, and the district court denied suppression, applying good-faith exceptions where appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrants were supported by probable cause	Grupee contends the affidavits were thin and stale for probable cause.	Grupee argues lack of continued connection between Roderiques, the phone, and 54 Bedford Street undermines probable cause.	Warrants supported probable cause; good-faith exception applies; no suppression required.
Whether the car search violated the Fourth Amendment	Grupee asserts insufficient probable cause linking the Infiniti to contraband.	Grupee argues the dog alert and prior observations were inadequate without more dog-specific reliability data.	Probable cause established; dog alert acceptable under Meyer and corroborating observations; good-faith reliance upheld.
Whether Grupee’s sentence was correctly calculated under the Guidelines	Grupee challenges the use of § 2K2.1(a)(3) based on his prior offenses as criminis violence.	Grupee relies on Begay framework but is bound by Dancy and supporting circuit precedent treating ABPO as a crime of violence.	Sentence affirmed; ABPO treated as violence for guideline purposes; one crime of violence suffices for enhancement.

United States v. Ribeiro, 397 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2005) (probable cause standard for warrants; substantial basis required)
United States v. Meyer, 536 F.2d 963 (1st Cir. 1976) (drug-dog alert sufficiency; reasonable inference of reliability)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good faith exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Dancy, 640 F.3d 455 (1st Cir. 2011) (ABPO as violent felony under Begay framework; ACCA analogy)
United States v. Holloway, 630 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 2011) (Begay-related discussion; violence categorization under Guidelines)
United States v. Almenas, 553 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2009) (prior felony as crime of violence under Guidelines)
Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 112 (2009) ( Begay-related considerations for crime categorization)
Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (Begay limits; separate treatment of intent vs. recklessness)
Weekes v. United States, 611 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2010) (rejection of opponent urged conflicts with Begay/Chambers)
United States v. Race, 529 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1976) (reliability assessment of a drug-detection dog)
United States v. Berry, 90 F.3d 148 (6th Cir. 1996) (dog reliability and warrant applications; general standards)