Posts Tagged ‘possession’

Unsolicited private search does not constitute “search” under Fourth Amendment as long as search is confined to same scope as initial private search.

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

U.S. v. GARCIA-BERCOVICH, 582 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. September 10, 2009)

Appealing his convictions for both conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms, but less than 1000 kilograms of marijuana, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish his knowledge or awareness that there was marijuana contained in the package seized and that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the government improperly expanded the search. However, the appellate court found that sufficient evidence did exist to support the defendant’s knowledge or awareness because the defendant made multiple trips to pick up packages from an unknown source, he had prior convictions for marijuana importation, he acted with “deliberate ignorance” regarding the existence of contraband, and he attempted to evade the police when caught. The court then examined the legality of the motion to suppress and found no error because as long as the search was confined to the same scope as the initial search, once one box was opened permissibly, the others could also be searched as part of same package.

Court finds convictions for both “receiving” and “possessing” child pornography do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Monday, August 10th, 2009

U.S. v. Bobb, 2009 WL 2391918 (August 6, 2009)

The defendant was convicted on both charges and sentenced to 96 months imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. Defendant appealed and argued that he received multiple punishments for the same offense. The defendant argued that it is impossible to receive a thing, without, at least the very instant of receipt, also possessing it and thus possession is a lesser included offense of receipt. Considering defendant’s argument, the Court looked to the statutory construction of each provision and then to legislative intent and found that, in concurrence with the Third and Ninth Circuits, Congress did not intend to punish a defendant twice for the same criminal act. However, in the instant case, the defendant was charged with two separate offenses on two separate dates, therefore the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.

A subject matter jurisdictional question is not waived by a guilty plea.

Monday, May 4th, 2009

U. S. v. BETANCOURTH, 07-14710, (January 13, 2009)

The defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine and to possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70501.

Prior to the plea, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that the government could not prosecute him because the Equadorian government had not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction over the Equadorian vessel which the United States government had seized. The district court found that Ecuador did consent to the United States’ exercise of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit determined that because the defendant entered an unconditional plea, this ordinarily would have waived the issue, however a subject matter jurisdiction challenge that can not be waived by a guilty plea. Nevertheless, the Court found the district court was correct.