United States v. Kermit Rogers
481 F. App'x 157
5th Cir.2012Background
- Rogers was convicted of possession with intent to distribute over fifty grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a),(b)(1)(a).
- Rogers challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and argued the court should have held an evidentiary hearing.
- A search warrant authorized the raid at 320 CR 401, Shannon, Lee County, Mississippi, and included vehicles on the property; officers found crack cocaine in a recliner and in Rogers’s truck, plus a firearm.
- Rogers contends his truck was parked on an adjacent property, not the property listed in the warrant.
- Rogers entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; the district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and sentenced him to 120 months.
- The appellate court vacated the ruling, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts affecting suppression and the good-faith question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidentiary hearing required on the suppression motion? | Rogers contends facts are disputed and warrant an evidentiary hearing. | United States argues no hearing needed; record supports denial. | Abuse; remanded for evidentiary hearing. |
| Did the record sufficiently establish whether the truck was on the warranted property and whether good faith applies? | Rogers showed the truck was on an adjacent property; record lacked sufficient facts. | United States contends the search was reasonable under the circumstances. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing to determine location and good-faith basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (honest mistake in identifying place searched may be reasonable)
- Carrillo-Morales v. United States, 27 F.3d 1054 (5th Cir. 1994) (two buildings similar in appearance may be covered by a warrant noting one address)
- Harrelson v. United States, 705 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1983) (evidentiary hearings are required only for sufficiently definite, detailed claims)
- United States v. Smith, 546 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1977) (preference for hearings when necessary to resolve facts underlying suppression)
- United States v. Poe, 462 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1972) (standard for determining the need for an evidentiary hearing)