United States v. O'Brien
926 F.3d 57
| 2d Cir. | 2019Background
- CBP intercepted packages at JFK containing methylone and anabolic steroids; HSI conducted controlled deliveries leading to identification of Michael O’Brien as "Big."
- O’Brien was arrested October 10, 2013 on a state fugitive warrant at his College Point apartment; agents read Miranda warnings, obtained oral consent there, then transported him to a precinct where he signed a DHS/ICE written consent to search a 41st Road stash apartment. Searches yielded large quantities of methylone, steroids, computers, false IDs, airway bills, cash, phones, and leasing records.
- O’Brien claimed at a suppression hearing that he was addicted to GHB and was in withdrawal/incompetent to waive Miranda or consent to searches; he also disputed signing the written consent. Agents testified O’Brien was lucid, talkative, and gave detailed admissions about importing drugs using aliases, mailboxes, bitcoins, and China-based suppliers.
- District court credited agents, found Miranda warnings given and knowingly waived, found both oral and written consents voluntary, and denied suppression; O’Brien proceeded pro se at trial and was convicted on five counts (importation, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy, and operating a stash house).
- Post-verdict, O’Brien sought acquittal claiming insufficient evidence he knew methylone was a controlled substance and that methylone’s scheduling was unconstitutional (impermissible delegation and inadequate notice); district court denied relief. Second Circuit affirmed on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (O’Brien) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Miranda waiver and admissibility of postarrest statements | Agents properly administered Miranda; O’Brien was lucid and voluntarily spoke; waiver can be inferred from his statements | O’Brien was in GHB withdrawal and incapable of knowingly waiving Miranda | Waiver was valid: district court crediting agent testimony was not clearly erroneous; statements admissible |
| Voluntariness of consent to search (College Point and 41st Road) | Consent (oral then written) was voluntary under Schneckloth totality-of-circumstances; agents did not coerce and O’Brien was informed of right to refuse on the written form | Consent involuntary due to GHB withdrawal, coercive circumstances, and lack of notice of right to refuse | Consent was voluntary; no requirement to advise of right to refuse and record supports voluntariness |
| Sufficiency of evidence that O’Brien knew methylone was a controlled substance | Circumstantial evidence (admissions, detailed smuggling methods, use of aliases/mailboxes/bitcoin, mislabeling, stash house, instructions) supports knowledge beyond reasonable doubt | Government failed to prove he knew methylone was a controlled substance | Evidence sufficient: reasonable juror could infer O’Brien knew methylone was controlled |
| Validity and notice of methylone scheduling (timeliness and merits) | Scheduling via Attorney General/DEA and publication in Federal Register is constitutionally permissible and provides notice; claim was untimely when raised post-trial | Scheduling was an unconstitutional delegation and Federal Register notice insufficient; indictment defective | Motion untimely under Rule 12; merits lack substance (Touby controls) and Federal Register publication provides constructive notice; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (recognition of right to counsel and warnings requirement)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (waiver may be inferred from actions and words after Miranda warnings)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent-to-search voluntariness is a totality-of-circumstances test; no per se requirement to advise of right to refuse)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (custody alone does not render consent invalid)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness)
- Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (upheld delegation to Attorney General/DEA scheduling process)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing severe impairment from intoxication/withdrawal cases for Miranda waiver analysis)
- United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226 (2d Cir.) (consent involuntary where agents’ conduct rendered environment coercive)