United States v. Pickel
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12858
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pickel was part of a multi-state marijuana distribution network that obtained high-grade marijuana in California and transported it to Kansas; co-defendants included Los and Roosevelt Dahda.
- Law enforcement intercepted calls, performed surveillance, and learned the group used modified auxiliary fuel tanks to conceal drugs; one co-conspirator was previously stopped with marijuana in such a tank.
- In April 2012 Kansas investigators tracked Pickel by GPS and asked Nebraska troopers to stop him; troopers observed traffic/equipment violations, questioned him, a drug dog alerted, and officers found ~37 pounds of marijuana in an auxiliary fuel tank in Pickel’s truck.
- A later search of Pickel’s California residence uncovered ~200 marijuana plants; intercepted calls and testimony tied Pickel to packaging, transporting, receiving funding for a grow, and coordinating deliveries.
- Pickel was convicted of (1) conspiracy to manufacture/possess with intent to distribute marijuana and maintaining drug premises, and (2) using a telephone to facilitate a drug trafficking felony; sentenced to 27 months imprisonment, 10 years supervised release, and a joint-and-several forfeiture money judgment.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed convictions and supervised-release term but reversed the joint-and-several forfeiture under statutory limits and remanded for resentencing on forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Pickel's Argument | Government's/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to suppress evidence from vehicle stop | Stop/search violated Fourth Amendment; evidence should be suppressed | Kansas investigators had probable cause; Nebraska troopers acted on their request — collective-knowledge doctrine | Affirmed: collective knowledge imputed Kansas probable cause; stop/search lawful |
| Sufficiency of evidence for single, large conspiracy (Count 1) | Evidence showed multiple smaller conspiracies or only limited, personal grow activity | Intercepted calls, surveillance, packaging/transportation roles, and coordination supported a single, interdependent conspiracy | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for jury to find Pickel knowingly participated and was interdependent |
| Sufficiency of § 843(b) telephone-use conviction (Count 70) | Single call insufficient / lacked mens rea or did not facilitate distribution | A phone call arranging delivery (and Pickel’s possession of contraband) can facilitate the conspiracy; each call is a separate offense | Affirmed: rational jury could find Pickel knowingly used phone to facilitate conspiracy |
| Joint-and-several forfeiture liability under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a) | Forfeiture judgment made Pickel liable for full conspiracy proceeds; violates statute and Eighth Amendment | District court awarded forfeiture on conspiracy-wide value; Government later conceded error under Honeycutt | Reversed and remanded: § 853(a) limits forfeiture to property the defendant himself obtained; joint-and-several forfeiture improper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Los Dahda, 853 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2017) (same-conspiracy sufficiency upheld in related appeals)
- United States v. Roosevelt Dahda, 852 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2017) (same-conspiracy sufficiency in co-defendant appeal)
- United States v. Whitley, 680 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2012) (vertical collective-knowledge doctrine explained)
- United States v. Chavez, 534 F.3d 1338 (10th Cir. 2008) (collective knowledge and vehicle-search principles)
- United States v. Pettit, 785 F.3d 1374 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (probable cause and canine-alert standards)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (Fourth Amendment applies to state law enforcement)