United States v. Jason Guidry
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5322
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Guidry was stopped for no license plates; officer detected faint marijuana odor and called a drug-detection canine; canine alerted at the open driver’s door and officers found heroin, cocaine, and a marijuana "blunt" in the car. Guidry was arrested.
- Police obtained search warrants for Guidry’s two residences based on the car seizure, detectives’ testimony, and information from confidential informants; searches uncovered large quantities of drugs and corroborating evidence of prostitution and drug-for-sex exchanges.
- Guidry pleaded guilty to three counts of interstate travel for prostitution and one count of possession with intent to distribute; he reserved his right to appeal suppression rulings.
- At sentencing the PSR recommended guideline enhancements, including a cross-reference to § 2A3.1 for causing victims to engage in sexual acts by placing them in fear, and a § 3A1.1 “vulnerable victim” enhancement; the court sentenced Guidry to 299 months’ imprisonment and concurrent supervised-release terms.
- On appeal Guidry challenged: (1) the legality of the dog sniff and car search; (2) probable cause for the residence warrants; (3) the two guideline enhancements; and (4) several supervised-release conditions as vague, ambiguous, or conflicting.
Issues
| Issue | Guidry's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dog sniff/search of car unlawfully prolonged stop or invaded interior | Rodriguez dog sniff unreasonably prolonged stop and dog entered interior, so evidence should be suppressed | Dog sniff did not meaningfully prolong stop; officers had reasonable suspicion; dog’s brief intrusion was not facilitated by police and probable cause existed once dog alerted | Denied: sniff/search lawful; suppression denied |
| Whether warrants for 12th St and Pine St residences lacked probable cause | Warrants rested on fruit of illegal car search and uncorroborated/stale informant tips | Warrants supported by drugs seized from car, Guidry’s admissions, recent reliable CI information, and corroboration | Denied: warrants valid; suppression denied |
| Whether cross-reference to § 2A3.1 (sexual-abuse guideline) was improper | Victims’ fear insufficient to qualify for § 2A3.1 cross-reference | Victim testimony and evidence showed Guidry used fear/coercion and addiction control to cause sexual acts | Affirmed: cross-reference proper |
| Whether § 3A1.1 vulnerable-victim enhancement was improper | Drug addiction alone insufficient; no additional vulnerability shown | Guidry exploited M.M.’s heroin addiction and withdrawal to coerce sex; court considered individual circumstances | Affirmed: enhancement proper |
| Whether several supervised-release conditions were vague/conflicting or required clarification | Conditions (support dependents; alcohol use; third-party notification; payment for treatment) are vague, overbroad, or inconsistent | Government did not dispute need to clarify; these were challenged for lack of tailoring/clarity | Vacated and remanded five conditions for clarification (Standard Conds. 4, 7, 13; Additional Conds. 1, 2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (police may not prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant-based probable cause)
- United States v. Sanford, 806 F.3d 954 (reasonable suspicion can justify brief delay to await drug dog)
- United States v. Winningham, 140 F.3d 1328 (dog jumped into open vehicle; court found Fourth Amendment violation where officers facilitated intrusion)
- United States v. Henzel, 668 F.3d 972 (broad definition of "fear" for § 2242 context supporting cross-reference to sexual-abuse guideline)
- United States v. Sewell, 780 F.3d 839 (vague/overbroad supervised-release condition re: support of dependents)
- United States v. Baker, 755 F.3d 515 (conditions must unambiguously state prohibited conduct; payment-for-treatment conditions require clarification)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (third-party notification condition is ambiguous and requires specificity)