United States v. Little
2017 WL 398328
D.D.C.2017Background
- Defendant Gaddy Little was indicted for possession with intent to distribute PCP and crack, unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense; arrested Jan 11, 2017.
- After an initial magistrate hearing released Little to home confinement, the Government sought and obtained review; this Court held a de novo detention hearing and ordered detention on Jan 18, 2017.
- Facts proffered by the Government: October 11, 2016 car crash; officers recovered vials (some containing odorous liquid described as PCP) and 10.5 g crack from the vehicle; search of the home recovered multiple vials, empty vials, zip bags, gloves, significant ammunition, a .45 pistol under a couch cushion (Little said if it’s a .45 it’s his), and $504 cash.
- Little has multiple prior narcotics convictions (including recent PCP-related convictions) and a prior firearms conviction; was on probation at the time of the alleged offenses and has a history of reoffending while on supervision.
- Defense arguments: the seizure form mischaracterized liquids as paraphernalia rather than PCP, no DEA lab confirmation yet, delay between seizure/indictment/arrest undercuts danger/flight risk, and co-defendant Mack was released.
- Court findings: relied on scent/appearance of PCP vials, seized paraphernalia, firearm and ammunition, cash, and criminal history to find probable cause, trigger the § 3142(e) rebuttable presumption, and conclude detention was necessary to protect the community.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 3142(e)(3) rebuttable presumption of detention is triggered | Grand jury indictment for large-quantity PCP offenses establishes probable cause to trigger the presumption | The quantity/character of the seized liquid is disputed (entry labeled paraphernalia); lack of DEA testing undercuts probable cause | Presumption triggered: court accepts grand jury indictment and officers’ proffer (smell/appearance) as probable cause |
| Whether defendant rebutted the presumption showing conditions could assure safety/appearance | Government: evidence of drug distribution, firearm access, cash, prior convictions, and reoffending on supervision demonstrate risk | Little: delays in indictment/arrest, co-defendant’s release, and disputed drug quantity show low risk of flight or danger | Defendant failed to rebut presumption; detention ordered |
| Weight of evidence factor under § 3142(g) | Strong: admissions, firearm ownership, multiple vials/paraphernalia, and seized crack corroborate distribution | Defense attacks weight by disputing whether liquid is PCP and emphasizing lack of lab confirmation | Weight favors detention given proffered facts and admissions |
| Danger to community and suitability of home confinement | Government: accessible gun/ammunition, drug paraphernalia, cash, and prior conduct indicate continued risk even if confined at home | Defense: injuries limit mobility and risk of flight; home confinement would mitigate danger | Court holds home confinement insufficient; detention required to protect community |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 903 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir.) (grand jury indictment may establish probable cause for § 3142(e) presumption)
- United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir.) (same principle on relying on indictment for probable cause)
- United States v. Muschetta, 118 F. Supp. 3d 340 (D.D.C. 2015) (court must evaluate weight of the evidence under § 3142(g)(2))
- United States v. Cardoza, 713 F.3d 656 (D.C. Cir.) (cash, drugs, and prior arrests support inference of drug dealing)
- United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985 (D.C. Cir.) (description of local PCP sales practices and packaging)
- United States v. Castle, 53 F. Supp. 95 (D.D.C.) (discussing PCP sales methods)
- United States v. Sheffield, 799 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C.) (de novo review on magistrate release orders under § 3145)