United States v. James Thompson
881 F.3d 629
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Police received an anonymous tip in July 2015 that James Thompson was distributing controlled substances and conducted surveillance of his residence.
- Officers arranged two controlled trash pulls from a garbage container at Thompson’s driveway/garage entrance and recovered drug-related items and a storage-unit receipt.
- Based on the trash evidence and informant information, police obtained warrants and searched Thompson’s home (19 g meth in a lockbox; $26,063 in cash; paraphernalia) and a storage unit (115.1 g meth; $36,950 cash).
- Thompson moved to suppress evidence, arguing the trash pulls violated the Fourth Amendment; the magistrate and district court rejected suppression, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy and that probable cause existed independent of the trash.
- After an August 2016 jury trial Thompson was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to 150 months; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the warrantless trash pulls a Fourth Amendment violation? | Trash was within the curtilage (by garage), so expectation of privacy existed. | Trash was readily accessible to the public and left for collection; no reasonable expectation of privacy. | Court held no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy; trash pulls lawful. |
| Did the evidence suffice to prove possession with intent to distribute? | Evidence was insufficient to show possession and intent to distribute. | Quantity, purity, large cash, scales, packaging, phones, and buyer testimony support intent to distribute. | Court held evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict. |
| Were the search warrants invalid or saved by good-faith? | Warrants relied on trash-pull evidence; if trash pulls unconstitutional, warrants invalid. | Even without trash evidence, probable cause existed; alternatively, Leon good-faith exception applies. | Court concluded probable cause independent of trash and found denial of suppression proper. |
| Are pro se supplemental claims (including ineffective assistance) meritorious? | Pro se brief raised multiple claims including ineffective assistance. | Claims lack merit; ineffective-assistance claims are generally not considered on direct appeal. | Court rejected the pro se claims as without merit and declined to consider ineffective-assistance on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left for collection)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Farnell, 701 F.3d 256 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Trejo, 831 F.3d 1090 (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- United States v. Fetters, 698 F.3d 653 (elements and inferences for possession with intent to distribute)
- United States v. Schubel, 912 F.2d 952 (circumstantial evidence of intent to distribute)
- United States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708 (quantity/purity as indicia of distribution)
- United States v. Comeaux, 955 F.2d 586 (focus on public accessibility under Greenwood)
- United States v. Segura-Baltazar, 448 F.3d 1281 (trash visible/accessible next to garage; no privacy)
- United States v. Hedrick, 922 F.2d 396 (absence of barriers indicates exposure to public)
- United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781 (ineffective-assistance claims normally preserved for collateral review)