United States v. McGhee
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24901
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- McGhee was convicted of possession of cocaine base (at least five grams) and possession with intent to distribute (less than five grams).
- Officers searched Room 6 and McGhee following a controlled drug buy linked to Pooh; they obtained a warrant to search for cocaine and related items on the person and in the room.
- During the search, 31 baggies of cocaine base were found concealed in McGhee’s buttocks after a strip-search-like procedure, along with other items indicating drug activity.
- Earlier that day, a confidential informant made a controlled purchase from Pooh; a chemist later testified the 31 baggies totaled 7.88 grams and a separate sample weighed 0.49 grams.
- A second chemist’s test results for the sample were not introduced; the government offered Tatro’s testimony that relied in part on Knowles’ report to establish the sample’s nature and weight.
- At sentencing, the district court classified McGhee as a career offender based on a youthful offender adjudication for armed robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon, which the First Circuit later analyzed under Torres and preserved for en banc review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the strip/search-like search of McGhee was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. | McGhee argues the search was an intrusive body cavity visual search. | The government contends the search was within permissible limits given probable cause and the circumstances. | The search was lawful and suppression denied. |
| Whether Tatro’s testimony about the sample violated the Confrontation Clause by relying on Knowles’ report. | McGhee contends Melendez-Diaz barred reliance on Knowles’ report through Tatro. | The testimony rested partly on Knowles’ data but also on Tatro’s independent testing and methods. | Harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt; weight testimony can be disregarded as it was largely irrelevant to outcome. |
| Whether McGhee’s youthful-offender adjudication counts as a second prior felony for career-offender status. | Torres requires a Massachusetts adult-conviction interpretation; McGhee challenges reliance on youthful offender status. | Torres controls; youthful offender adjudication counts as a prior felony for career-offender purposes. | Torres controls; McGhee’s career-offender status upheld; en banc review preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (established scope of searches incident to arrest; warrantless searches must be reasonable)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (full search of person during an ordinary arrest)
- Barnes v. United States, 506 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2007) (limits on intrusiveness of searches; contextual factors matter)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) (Confrontation Clause; lab certificates generally require live testimony)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes testimonial evidence requires prior cross-examination)
- Torres v. United States, 541 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2008) (treats youthful offender adjudications for career-offender purposes; en banc review preserved)
- Mirabal v. United States, No. 09-3207 (D.N.M. 2010) ( Melendez-Diaz issues; evidentiary weight considerations)