United States v. McDowell (Theodore)
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7430
10th Cir.2013Background
- McDowell was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana; the district court denied suppression and imposed a sentence under the Guidelines.
- Officers smelled marijuana and observed incriminating evidence at an Avondale, Arizona residence, leading to a search warrant and seizure of marijuana, cash, and packaging materials.
- Five men, including McDowell, were found inside the house; approximately 630 pounds of marijuana were in a second vehicle in the garage; $223,000 in cash was concealed in a suitcase and spare tire.
- Defendant appealed three sentencing-related issues: (a) whether evidence at the Avondale property was gathered in violation of curtilage, (b) whether the district court correctly determined the start of his participation in the conspiracy, and (c) whether the quantity of marijuana attributed to him for sentencing was proper.
- The panel affirmed the conviction and sentencing, rejecting the curtilage challenge and upholding the conspiracy participation and quantity determinations.
- The court relied on prior circuit and Supreme Court rulings regarding curtilage, probable cause, and the assessment of relevant conduct for drug quantity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Curtilage suppression issue | McDowell; area in front of home highly curtilage-like | Officer trespassed on curtilage to sniff | No suppression error; warrant valid despite front-yard approach |
| Start date of participation in conspiracy | McDowell only associated with others; not proven to join until arrest | McDowell joined conspiracy earlier based on travel and payments | Not clearly erroneous; participation found beginning May 2006 |
| Drug quantity attributed for sentencing | Sufficient evidence that conspiracy trafficked over 3,000 kg during May 2006–May 2007 | Quantities were speculative and unreliable | District court did not clearly err; quantity supported above 3,000 kg |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunn, 480 F.3d 294 (U.S. 1987) (factors for curtilage; proximities and protections considered)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1984) (curtilage protective umbrella applies to area surrounding home)
- United States v. Cruz-Mendez, 467 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2006) (knock-and-talk not per se Fourth Amendment violation)
- United States v. Hatfield, 333 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2003) (affirming non-search approach to home-adjacent areas)
- United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009) (review of suppression rulings; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Foy, 641 F.3d 455 (10th Cir. 2011) (preponderance standard for drug quantity)