United States v. Mack
53 F. Supp. 3d 179
D.D.C.2014Background
- Indicted 5/23/2013 for unlawful distribution of PCP and over 100g of PCP; bond denial 6/12/2014; three motions to dismiss by Mack; government’s omnibus response; hearings held 7/10/2014; court denies motions.
- Undercover operation: Mack contacted by undercover officers via text; initial sale recorded on video on 7/23/2012; later sale recorded on video on 9/5/2012; quantities involved show PCP-containing substances; drugs tested and confirmed PCP.
- Investigation paused for months due to lead investigator’s other duties; indictment returned 5/23/2013; arrest 6/12/2013.
- Challenged evidence sources: defendant argues wiretaps, informants, or cell-phone recordings were used; government contends there were no such searches or wiretaps involved.
- Court addresses multiple defenses (entrapment, selective prosecution, pre-indictment delay, discovery, severance, bill of particulars) and ultimately denies all dismissal motions.
- Joinder of two PCP-distribution counts permitted as a common scheme; Rule 14 severance denied absent prejudice; bill of particulars denied as charges are sufficiently detailed; pre-indictment delay not shown to be violative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourth Amendment searches or wiretaps were used | Mack argues unconstitutional search methods. | Government used cell-phone recordings and informants. | No Fourth Amendment violation; no searches or wiretaps used. |
| Whether statements to undercover officers violated Miranda | Statements were compelled by custodial interrogation. | Interrogation occurred; rights violated. | Miranda not applicable; statements voluntary and noncustodial. |
| Whether grand jury indictment is unconstitutional | Grand jury system flawed; unconstitutional under some theories. | Constitutional; challenges lack merit. | Indictment constitutionally sound. |
| Whether entrapment or selective prosecution bars indictment | Government inducement or discriminatory prosecution. | Entrapment and selective prosecution shown. | Entrapment fails; no evidence of selective prosecution. |
| Whether pre-indictment delay, discovery, severance, or bill of particulars require dismissal | Delay prejudicial; requesting discovery, severance, and bill of particulars. | Delay prejudicial; rights violated; needs more particulars. | No due process violation; discovery, severance, and bill of particulars denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 738 (1987) (upheld Bail Reform Act safeguards against pretrial detention challenges)
- Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963) (electronic surveillance must involve a legitimate privacy interest)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (Miranda custody inquiry—not just formal arrest)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (Miranda custody inquiry—not just formal arrest)
- United States v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (Miranda custody standard)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (pre-indictment speedy-trial considerations under due process)
- Armstrong v. United States, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (selective-prosecution standard is demanding)
- United States v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (entrapment considerations apply to government inducement)
- United States v. McKinley, 70 F.3d 1307 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (entrapment analysis—no undue inducement found)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (selective-prosecution standard)
- United States v. Savoy, 889 F. Supp. 2d 78 (2012) (DC district court addressing surveillance and privacy)