United States v. Kenneth Townsend, 638 F. App'x 172

Background

FBI intercepted Damon Boyd’s communications and, with local police, surveilled Boyd and Carter Gaston visiting Kenneth Townsend’s residence on multiple occasions in late 2011–early 2012.
On Feb. 1, 2012, officers stopped Boyd’s vehicle, arrested Boyd on an outstanding warrant, and during an inventory search found two still-wet patties of crack cocaine under the radio.
Based on the wire intercepts, surveillance, the vehicle stop, and the wet crack, Deputy Countryman obtained a search warrant for Townsend’s home; the search uncovered powder cocaine, scales, and items associated with crack processing.
A federal jury convicted Townsend of possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine (<500 g) and possession with intent to distribute ≥28 g of crack; a conspiracy count was dismissed after a hung jury.
At sentencing, the PSR designated Townsend a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 based on two prior convictions (one for a controlled substance offense and one for fleeing/eluding), producing a Guidelines range of 360 months–life; the district court imposed a downward-variance sentence of 200 months.
On appeal the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing because Johnson v. United States invalidated the Guidelines’ residual clause used to classify Townsend as a career offender.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the search warrant for Townsend’s home lacked probable cause because wiretap information was insufficiently corroborated	Townsend: affidavit relied on uncorroborated wiretap statements and bald assertions that Boyd and Townsend were dealers	Gov: affidavit included wire intercept, surveillance of visits, vehicle stop, and discovery of still-wet crack—sufficient corroboration	Warrant valid: magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause; suppression denied
Whether evidence should be suppressed for lack of officer authority under Pennsylvania law	Townsend: Countryman lacked authority to investigate/state-law violation so warrant invalid	Gov: state-law authorization irrelevant to Fourth Amendment validity	Rejected: state-law violation does not mandate suppression under the Fourth Amendment
Whether Townsend was entitled to a Franks hearing or had Confrontation/Alleyne-based sentencing claims	Townsend: affidavit may contain false/stale statements (Franks); Agent Hedges’ testimony was testimonial and required; Alleyne bars judge-found drug-quantity facts affecting sentence	Gov: no substantial showing for Franks; Hedges made no testimonial statements at trial or any error was harmless; Alleyne inapplicable to Guidelines factfinding	Rejected: no Franks hearing; Confrontation claim fails or is harmless; Alleyne does not apply to Guidelines sentencing findings
Whether sentencing as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 was permissible after Johnson	Townsend: residual-clause-based classification is invalid under Johnson	Gov: conceded Johnson applies to Guidelines residual clause here	Held: Johnson invalidates the Guidelines’ residual clause as applied; Townsend’s fleeing/eluding conviction cannot count as crime of violence—vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause assessed under totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (residual clause of ACCA is void for vagueness)
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (state-law violations do not control Fourth Amendment analysis)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial statements absent prior opportunity for cross-examination)
United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289 (court may credit experienced officers’ conclusions in probable-cause determinations)
United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318 (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
United States v. Hopkins, 577 F.3d 507 (treating ACCA and Guidelines residual clauses similarly in analysis)