United States v. Lonnell Glover
407 U.S. App. D.C. 189
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- FBI investigated Glover for PCP/heroin, obtained a warrant to place an audio recording device in his truck; affidavit identified the truck as parked at Baltimore/Washington International Airport.
- The warrant was signed by a D.C. judge and authorized agents to enter the truck "regardless of whether" it was in D.C., Maryland, or the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The device recorded heroin/PCP discussions and plans to import cocaine from the Bahamas; Wright was captured on recordings as part of that conspiracy.
- Initial indictments were dismissed by the district court for a Speedy Trial Act violation; government reindicted and defendants were later convicted by a jury.
- Defendants challenged the truck-bug evidence as obtained pursuant to a warrant that was "insufficient on its face" under Title III and inconsistent with Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(b).
- The D.C. Circuit found the warrant facially deficient for violating the territorial limits of Title III/Rule 41 and held suppression of the recordings required; convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of the original indictments should have been with prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act | Dismissal with prejudice required to vindicate Act and deter violations | D.C. court balanced statutory factors and chose dismissal without prejudice | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing without prejudice |
| Whether Wright’s Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim required relief beyond Speedy Trial Act analysis | Delay was unreasonable and prejudicial | Delay attributable partly to defendant; no showing of prejudice to defense | Affirmed: no Sixth Amendment violation shown |
| Whether the truck-bug warrant was "insufficient on its face" under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a)(ii) and Rule 41(b) (territorial jurisdiction) | Warrant facially deficient because issued by a D.C. judge for a device on property located in Maryland (outside judge’s jurisdiction) | Government: Title III permits a federal judge to authorize mobile interceptions outside issuing court’s district; listening-post cases support broader reach; good-faith exception should apply | Reversed convictions: warrant facially insufficient under § 2518 and Rule 41(b); suppression mandatory; good-faith exception inapplicable |
| Admissibility of other evidentiary rulings (severance; missing-witness inference; inextricably-intertwined evidence) | Glover: prejudiced by joint trial and by admission of PCP/heroin evidence; defendants sought to highlight uncalled witnesses | Government: joint trial appropriate; missing-witness inference not supported; recorded conversations tied PCP/heroin to cocaine plans (inextricably intertwined) | Affirmed in part: district court did not abuse discretion denying severance or allowing inextricably-intertwined evidence; missing-witness argument properly rejected, but these issues may be revisited on retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326 (1988) (appellate review of dismissal-without-prejudice under Speedy Trial Act is for abuse of discretion)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (four-factor Sixth Amendment speedy-trial inquiry)
- United States v. Chavez, 416 U.S. 562 (1974) (interpretation of "unlawfully intercepted" and relationship among Title III remedies)
- United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974) (reading § 2518 to avoid rendering statutory provisions surplusage)
- United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (1977) (Title III statutory interpretation discussions)
- United States v. Wright, 6 F.3d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (conspiracy to distribute cocaine is a serious offense for Speedy Trial Act balancing)
- In re Sealed Case, 573 F.3d 844 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (plain-error review permitting reversal for unpreserved arguments in certain circumstances)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Rice, 478 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2007) (suppression required for evidence obtained under facially insufficient Title III order)
- United States v. North, 728 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2013) (territorial jurisdiction is a core concern of Title III)
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (importance of highly probative evidence when assessing prejudice from erroneous admission)
- United States v. Bowie, 232 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (limits and cautions regarding the inextricably-intertwined doctrine)