United States v. Tommy Webster, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 74

Background

Tommy Lee Webster Jr. was indicted and convicted on drug and firearms charges after police searched 816 Almond Court (Mar 11, 2011) and found an indoor marijuana grow, packaged marijuana, powdered substances, scales, baggies, surveillance equipment, and shotguns. Webster had cash and his driver’s license listing that address.
Webster and another suspect were detained in the rear (caged) seat of a squad car while officers obtained a search warrant; an in-car video/audio system recorded an 8-minute segment of Webster speaking with the other detainee and making phone calls.
Two laboratory reports from an analyst (Kristen Sturgeon) identifying seized substances as marijuana, cocaine, and cocaine base were admitted into evidence though the analyst did not testify; defense counsel expressly did not object at trial.
Webster argued on appeal that (1) admission of the lab reports violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights; (2) the in-car recording violated his Fourth Amendment privacy rights; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support constructive-possession convictions and the § 924(c) possession-in-furtherance finding.
The Seventh Circuit concluded (a) admission of the lab reports without the analyst’s testimony was error but harmless under plain-error review because Webster never disputed the substances’ identity and defense strategy focused on lack of connection to the drugs; (b) there is no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy for conversations in a squad car, so the recording did not violate the Fourth Amendment; and (c) sufficient evidence supported constructive possession and possession-in-furtherance (Webster’s residency, mail, receipts, size of clothing, recording statements, proximity of guns to drugs, and grow operation).

Issues

Issue	Webster's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Admission of forensic lab reports (Confrontation Clause)	Reports admitted without analyst testimony violated right to confront and cross-examine (Bullcoming/Melendez-Diaz line).	Error conceded but harmless; Webster never disputed substance identity and defense strategy focused on connection to drugs.	Admission was error but, under plain-error review, not reversible because it did not affect substantial rights.
Recording/transcript of squad-car conversation (Fourth Amendment)	Recording of conversations in caged rear of patrol car was an unreasonable search violating privacy rights.	No reasonable expectation of privacy in squad-car conversations; visible electronics and common knowledge of recording make privacy unreasonable.	No objective expectation of privacy in squad-car conversations; recording admissible.
Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession and § 924(c)	Government failed to show actual or constructive possession or nexus between guns and drugs; mere proximity insufficient.	Multiple facts tied Webster to residence/bedroom (mortgage, mail, receipts, clothing size), his recorded statements admitted ownership/operation, guns proximate to drugs and grow operation—satisfy nexus.	Sufficient evidence under plain-error standard to sustain convictions, including possession-in-furtherance.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Maxwell, 724 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013) (admission of lab reports harmless where defendant did not contest substance identity)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic lab reports used as substantive evidence require live testimony of analyst)
United States v. Moon, 512 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2008) (inadmissibility of lab reports absent analyst testimony)
United States v. Turner, 209 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2000) (no reasonable expectation of privacy for squad-car conversations given vehicle electronics)
United States v. Clark, 22 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1994) (squad car as officer’s mobile office; occupants cannot reasonably expect privacy)
United States v. Dunbar, 553 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2009) (agreeing that squad-car conversations lack objective privacy expectation)