United States v. James L. Gibson
708 F.3d 1256
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Indictment charged three Gibson brothers and Burton with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and James Gibson with possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Tracking device was installed on Burton’s Chevy Avalanche without a warrant on January 27, 2009, while parked at James Gibson’s residence; Burton was the vehicle’s registered owner but James Gibson frequently drove it.
- Deputy Haskell stopped the Avalanche on February 20, 2009, for traffic violations; Burton was the driver and he consented to a search revealing two kilograms of cocaine.
- James Gibson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing lack of standing to challenge the tracking device and the stop; the district court denied suppression.
- Sidney Gibson’s prior conviction for conspiracy (2004) was admitted to prove knowledge and intent, and the district court addressed potential double jeopardy concerns in instructing the jury.
- Leondray Gibson challenged evidence of dog fighting; trial included testimony about dog fighting and its relevance to establishing connections in the drug-trafficking operation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge GPS tracking | Gibson lakes standing due to possession/control of Avalanche. | Gibson lacked ownership/possession when device installed; no standing. | Jones controls; Gibson lacks standing for the search, but standing for installation argument remains. |
| Double jeopardy and renewed conspiracy after arrest | Gibson argues continued participation after arrest violated double jeopardy. | District court erred by instructing jury Sidney could be convicted for post-arrest conduct. | District court properly protected against double jeopardy; no violation in jury instructions. |
| Admission of Sidney Gibson's prior conviction and related evidence | Prior conviction and arrest are probative for knowledge/intent and context. | Prejudicial and improper to prove guilt or broaden conspiracy. | Admission of prior conviction/arrest was proper with limiting instructions; probative and not misleading. |
| Admission of Leondray Gibson's dog-fighting evidence; reasonableness of sentence | Dog-fighting evidence explained relationships and income; relevant context. | Evidence unfairly prejudicial; sentence potentially unreasonable. | Evidence properly admitted with limiting instructions; sentence reasonable under 3553(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS installation constitutes a search)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (reasonable expectation of privacy requires external source)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Chaves, 169 F.3d 687 (11th Cir. 1999) (exclusive custody/control not required for standing in some contexts)
- United States v. Sarda-Villa, 760 F.2d 1232 (11th Cir. 1985) (possession/control factors in standing analysis)
- Garcia v. United States, 741 F.2d 363 (11th Cir. 1984) (ownership not prerequisite for privacy interest)
- United States v. Stricklin, 591 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1979) (continued participation after arrest; double jeopardy concern)
- United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264 (11th Cir. 2001) (coconspirator continuation and double jeopardy considerations)