United States v. William Angelo Marsh
663 F. App'x 888
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- DEA intercepted calls showing Marsh negotiated sale of kilograms of cocaine to known dealer Malachi “Malley” Mutakabbir using coded language (e.g., “greenery,” “smash out”).
- Marsh arranged that a runner would deliver the drugs at a hotel; when Malley refused to meet the runner, Marsh went to the hotel himself, entered a room, exited with a black bag, and made calls to Malley.
- Surveillance units tracked Marsh after he left the hotel; officers later located his black Nissan Altima and observed traffic infractions that justified a stop. An officer saw Marsh move an object from the front to the back seat during the stop.
- Officer Viar handcuffed Marsh, placed him in the patrol car, and searched the vehicle under the automobile exception, finding $33,500 in a black bag—consistent with the discussed price for one kilogram of cocaine.
- Marsh moved to suppress the cash; the district court denied suppression. After conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, the district court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) enhancement for supervisory role; Marsh appealed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Marsh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless search of vehicle (automobile exception) | Search violated Fourth Amendment; Gant limits searches incident to arrest | Officers had probable cause based on intercepted calls, surveillance (hotel entry with black bag), movement to condominium, and observed behavior during stop; automobile exception applies | Search valid under automobile exception; probable cause existed, so suppression denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 3B1.1(c) two‑level supervisory enhancement | Evidence did not prove Marsh supervised others; enhancement improper | Intercepted calls showed Marsh referencing and directing runners; hotel conduct corroborated control—preponderance met | Enhancement affirmed; district court did not clearly err finding Marsh supervised at least one participant |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (search of vehicle allowed if probable cause exists)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on searches incident to arrest when no probable cause to search vehicle)
- United States v. Watts, 329 F.3d 1282 (discussing automobile exception)
- United States v. Lindsey, 482 F.3d 1285 (automobile exception mobility and probable cause elements)
- United States v. Tamari, 454 F.3d 1259 (probable cause definition for vehicle searches)
- Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425 (standard for probable cause)
- United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245 (collective knowledge doctrine among officers)
- United States v. Goddard, 312 F.3d 1360 (observations by cooperating officers can create probable cause)
- United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181 (standard of review for suppression denials)
- United States v. Hill, 783 F.3d 842 (standard of review for role-in-offense findings)
- United States v. Smith, 821 F.3d 1293 (review limits on district court credibility/ choice between permissible views)
- United States v. Phillips, 287 F.3d 1053 (control of one participant suffices for § 3B1.1(c))
- United States v. Zitron, 810 F.3d 1253 (government’s burden to prove role enhancement by preponderance)