606 F. App'x 902
10th Cir.2015Background
- Steven M. Hohn appeals from drug and firearms convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine.
- The second superseding indictment charged fifteen defendants, including Hohn, with the conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine.
- Many conspirators pleaded guilty and testified against Hohn and co-defendants at trial, alongside law enforcement testimony.
- The jury convicted Hohn on all counts charged, including conspiracy, firearm offenses, and possession charges.
- Hohn challenges: (1) suppression of GPS-tracking evidence, (2) mistrial for a witness’s reference to a shooting, (3) suppression of truck-search evidence from 2011 and 2012, (4) use of a composite photo of defendants, (5) requested jury instructions, and (6) an enhanced offense level for imported drugs.
- The district court denied each challenged motion and the sentence included a two-level importation enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPS tracking suppression | Hohn: warrantless GPS was unreasonable; exclusion necessary. | Hohn: good-faith exception should apply; precedent supported reliance. | Good-faith exception applied; suppression denied. |
| Mistrial for shooting reference | Reference unjustly prejudiced jury; mistrial warranted. | District court properly cured with curative instruction; no mistrial. | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied. |
| Truck searches suppression | Searches exceeded warrant scope and truck seizure lacked probable cause. | Warrant scope and ownership implied control; suppression improper. | No error; searches reasonable; suppression denied. |
| Composite photo of codefendants | Composite photo was unfairly prejudicial and prejudiced Hohn. | Exhibit's use was permissible demonstrative aid; no abuse. | No abuse of discretion; admissible demonstrative. |
| Jury instruction on conspirator evidence | Instruction needed to prevent inference from mere association. | Court adequately instructed; no error. | No abuse of discretion; instruction refused but adequate instructions given. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (beeper tracking not a Fourth Amendment search under public-activity doctrine)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (beeper in can; physical trespass minimal relevance to Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS monitoring as a search; monitoring on public streets)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2009) (good-faith exception framework and de novo review on legal questions)
- United States v. Gottschalk, 915 F.2d 1459 (10th Cir. 1990) (scope of premises search and vehicle within curtilage)
- United States v. Katzin, 769 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc; applicability of good faith to GPS-type cases)