United States v. Long
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5841
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Long and Edwards, IMPD narcotics detectives, engaged in453 criminal thefts of marijuana and drug proceeds from drug couriers over months.
- A March 2008 sting used an undercover courier to seize cash; Long and Edwards shared proceeds with another officer.
- Post-sting, federal and state wiretapson Long’s and then Edwards’s phones captured multiple corrupt acts.
- May–June 2008 FBI sting operations targeted stash houses; Long and Edwards removed drugs and stored assets improperly.
- June 16, 2008, federal agents arrested Long and Edwards; convictions followed for narcotics conspiracy, possession, and attempted possession.
- Edwards challenged suppression of wiretap evidence; Long appealed his sentence with numerous sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sentencing sequence | Long: improper sequence; PSR first not guidelines. | Long: proper sequence not followed; errors affected outcome. | No reversible error; sequence acceptable and harmless. |
| Drug quantity determination | Long: insufficient subsidiary findings on quantities. | Long: PSR findings adequate; additional quantities tied to conspiracy. | Adequate; no plain error; PSR reliance proper. |
| Firearm enhancement | Long: firearm use not tied to drug offense; lawful purpose possible. | Long: enhancement inappropriate given legitimate duties. | Enhancement proper; firearm used to facilitate crimes. |
| Sentencing manipulation | Long: government manipulation via fictional tips. | Long: Garcia defense should apply; distinguishing facts. | Garcia defense rejected; no manipulation support. |
| Wiretap necessity (Edwards) | Edwards: necessity not shown; arrest imminent would suffice. | Edwards: necessity required; insufficient justification. | Necessity adequately shown; deference standard applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (guidelines range calculation should start sentencing process)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court 2007) (presentence report as initial step in process)
- Coopman, 602 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2010) (review sentencing procedures de novo)
- Glosser, 623 F.3d 413 (7th Cir. 2010) (guidelines calculation and testing framework)
- Jumah, 599 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review for quantity findings)
- Salem, 597 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2010) (adoption of PSR findings can satisfy plain-error review)
- Campos, 541 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2008) (necessity of wiretaps evaluated flexibly)
- McLee, 436 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2006) (necessity not limited to last-resort use)
- Garcia, 79 F.3d 74 (7th Cir. 1996) (no sentencing-manipulation defense recognized)