United States v. William Pariseau
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14529
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pariseau appeals his conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A).
- The district court denied suppression of drugs found strapped to Pariseau’s legs when he exited a Seattle airport plane.
- The district court also denied Pariseau’s orally raised challenge to Alaska venue as improper for trial.
- Pariseau argues Fourth Amendment rights were violated because he did not consent to the airport search.
- Pariseau also contends venue in Alaska was improper since he was arrested in Seattle.
- The court affirms, finding Pariseau voluntarily consented and that Alaska venue was proper as a continuing offense with substantial steps taken there.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pariseau validly consented to the airport search | Pariseau did not consent. | Pariseau consented; officer informed of warrant options. | Consent valid; search upheld. |
| Whether Alaska is proper venue for attempted possession | Venue improper in Alaska. | Venue proper; continuing offense with Alaska steps. | Venue proper in Alaska. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Muhammad, 502 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2007) (venue for possession with intent is proper when continuing crime)
- United States v. Zidell, 323 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2003) (continuing-crime venue rule for possession with intent)
- United States v. Buffington, 815 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1987) (conviction for attempt requires substantial step toward crime)
- United States v. Scott, 767 F.2d 1308 (9th Cir. 1985) (substantial steps and prior conduct may show intent)
- United States v. Manley, 632 F.2d 978 (2d Cir. 1980) (contextual consideration of conduct toward violation)