United States v. Ned
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6800
5th Cir.2011Background
- Ned checked into Knights Inn in Midland, Texas, on August 13, 2009 and provided a driver’s license and Jeep designation at check-in.
- A heated argument with Ned’s girlfriend, Mayfield, led to Ned leaving with drugs; later Mayfield alleged Ned was selling drugs at Club Remy and reported a Gucci bag containing drugs.
- Police located Ned’s gray Jeep Cherokee at Club Remy; a drug-detecting dog alerted to narcotics on the exterior and inside the Gucci bag.
- Officers opened the Jeep with a slim jim, recovered the Gucci bag containing crack cocaine, MDMA, marijuana, paraphernalia, and cash; car and room keys were also recovered.
- Knights Inn manager and trial testimony connected Ned to the Knights Inn room and to driving a Jeep; an Auto Zone rewards card in the bag was tied to another Ned, Eugene Ned.
- Aldridge testified Ned confessed possession of the crack cocaine while in custody, corroborating Mayfield and Dunson’s trial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ned had standing and/or Fourth Amendment violation by search | Ned contested suppression based on standing and unlawful search. | Ned argued improper search and lack of standing. | The court affirmed denial of suppression; probable cause supported the search. |
| Whether the automobile exception and probable cause justified the Jeep search | Probable cause existed from Mayfield’s tip, Jeep location, and Sid’s drug alert. | Argued lack of independent probable cause or improper search. | Probable cause existed; search under automobile exception was reasonable. |
| Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain possession with intent to distribute | Evidence linked Ned to the Jeep and the drugs, showing knowledge and intent. | Challenged sufficiency of linking Ned to drugs and knowledge/intent. | A rational jury could find Ned knowingly possessed with intent to distribute. |
| Whether evidentiary rulings (Mayfield statement, Auto Zone card, Aldridge testimony) were proper | Rulings admitted Mayfield’s statement and Auto Zone card as proper under rules 801(d)(2) and 803(6). | Objected to hearsay, authentication, and speculative testimony. | rulings upheld; no reversible error on these grounds. |
| Whether cumulative error requires reversal | N/A (prosecution contends individual errors were harmless). | Argued multiple evidentiary errors cumulatively affected fairness. | No reversible cumulative error; trial was not unfairly tainted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. 1993) (automobile exception requires probable cause)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1985) (vehicle exception based on mobility and privacy expectations)
- Mack v. City of Abilene, 461 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2006) (applies automobile exception to unoccupied parked cars)
- Resendiz v. Miller, 203 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 2000) (drug-detection canine alert provides probable cause)
- Lopez v. United States, 74 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 1996) (knowledge and intent may be inferred from circumstances)
- Ledezma-Hernandez v. United States, 729 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1984) (knowledge/possession may be inferred from circumstances)
- Inocencio v. United States, 40 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1994) (knowledge/intent inferred from context)
- United States v. Armstrong, 619 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2010) (foundation for business-record admissibility; lay witness sufficiency)