United States v. Shrader
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6734
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Shrader harassed D.S. for decades, including murder of D.S.'s mother and friend and threatening communications.
- Shrader was convicted in separate trials: felon in possession of a firearm, then two stalking counts under §2261A(2).
- Evidence included a firearm cabinet in Shrader's aunt's home and letters/phone calls to D.S. and her family.
- District court denied suppression of firearms; instructed on possession—proximate firearms may support dominion and control.
- Shrader appealed, challenging suppression, jury instruction, vagueness of §2261A(2), multiplicity of counts, and sentence; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of firearm evidence under Randolph | United States contends Randolph does not require defendant present when cotenant consents. | Shrader argues prior refusal voids later cotenant consent. | Randolph not violated; consent valid as Shrader absent and not staged to defeat rights. |
| Constructive possession jury instruction adequacy | Government argues the court's instruction correctly stated law. | Shrader seeks Blue-like proximity-only instruction. | District court did not abuse; instruction properly tied proximity to knowledge and dominion. |
| Vagueness of §2261A(2) stalking statute | Statute provides definite notice with intent and effect requirements. | Harass/intimidate and course-of-conduct definitions are vague. | Not vague; statute provides notice and requires intent toward a specific person and resulting fear or distress. |
| Multiplicities of Counts One and Two under §2261A(2) | Two victims create two separate offenses; unit of prosecution is the victim. | Counts may be multiplicitous as same course of conduct. | Not multiplicitous; unit of prosecution is the targeted person with distinct intents. |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (presence requirement for cotenant consent; defendant must be present and object)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent valid if common authority over premises)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (reasonable belief of shared authority permits search)
- United States v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (2004) (harass/intimidate definitions; scienter mitigates vagueness; common meaning)
- United States v. Herder, 594 F.3d 352 (2010) (constructive possession instruction; proximity evidence permitted with proper instructions)