Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Spearman, 4th Cir. (2007)
United States v. Spearman, 4th Cir. (2007)
No. 06-4244
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00060-RLW)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Kelvin Spearman (defendant) was charged in a fourcount superseding indictment for conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine), in violation of 21
U.S.C. 846 (Count One), possession with intent to distribute
cocaine
base,
in
violation
of
21
U.S.C.
841(a)(1),
Counts One and Two, arguing that the district court erred when it
denied the suppression motion and that the evidence did not support
his conviction on the conspiracy count.
follow, we affirm.
I.
Defendant first raises a Fourth Amendment challenge to the
traffic stop1 that preceded the seizure of crack cocaine from
underneath the drivers seat of the vehicle that he was driving.
Defendant contends that the police officer who initiated the
Rahmel
Logan
testified
that,
with
the
use
of
in
the
individual
middle
approach
of
the
the
street.
vehicle
and
Detective
engage
Logan
the
saw
an
driver
in
Logans
car
without
making
drug
purchase.
The
The
McCray
were
in
their
vehicle
when
they
received
the
radio
another
going
in
opposite
directions.
While
passing
half
block
separated
the
vehicles
when
After traveling
drove through the stop sign, and, unable to observe the tag of
defendants vehicle, pulled to the shoulder and parked immediately
behind defendant.
lights.
pulled his badge from under his shirt and, at that point, observed
defendants left shoulder make a downward motion, as if defendant
were reaching under the seat with his left hand.
As Detective
Defendant then
what defendant was doing under the seat, and defendant stated that
he dropped his cell phone and made a motion like he was going to
reach back under the seat.
that a cell phone was already in defendants lap and testified that
he believed defendant might be reaching for a weapon.
Detective
Detective
cocaine.
information,
Meanwhile,
which
Detective
revealed
an
McCray
outstanding
ran
defendants
arrest
warrant.
transmitted
over
the
radio
by
Detective
Logan,
Therefore,
by
reasonable
articulable
suspicion;
and
(3)
brief
Id.
a commonsensical proposition.
United States v.
Detective
Salyer
initially
approached
defendant
in
did not have reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop at that time,
cf. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271-72, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.
Ed. 2d 254 (2000), the circumstances evolved to present a more
suspicious and dangerous climate when the detectives saw defendant
observing them approach his vehicle and ducking his left shoulder,
apparently reaching under his drivers seat.
received a report over the police radio that drugs were available
from
defendants
car,
and
Detective
Salyer
thought,
though
mirror on the detectives while reaching under his car seat created
heightened tension in an already-known high-crime area.
When
the
criminal
bystanders
are
activity
physically
occurs,
harmed,
and
perhaps
before
until
taking
innocent
reasonable,
We
conclude
to
that
these
factors,
taken
together,
give
rise
we
find
that
the
search
under
the
defendants
Terry
(1983)(search
of
stop.
the
See
Michigan
passenger
v.
Long,
compartment
of
463
an
U.S.
1032
automobile,
Id.
and
the
Fourth
Amendment
does
not
require
its
in
actual
purchases
of
10
$80
and
$150
worth.
The
Cox testified
United States v.
prove
distribute
in
conspiracy
violation
to
of
possess
21
cocaine
U.S.C.
with
841(a)(1),
intent
to
846,
the
knowingly
and
voluntarily
became
part
of
this
cocaine
with
intent
to
distribute.
Id.
Viewing
the
evidence
to
support
finding
that
defendant's
12
Cox.3
See United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 363, 373 (6th Cir.
mere
buyer-seller
relationship.);
United
States
v.
Bourjaily, 781 F.2d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (A large volume of
narcotics creates an inference of a conspiracy.).
The court finds a conspiracy was established because (a) Coxs
purchases were of an amount too great to be for only personal use,
even if the drugs were to be shared with friends (whose money was
pooled to make the purchase), thereby sufficiently establishing
intent to distribute; and (b) testimony that Cox purchased from
both defendant and his uncle, Sonny, and testimony that all three
of them met together at a Fourth of July block party and discussed
purchasing drugs from defendant establishes the existence of an
agreement.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds no error in the
district courts denial of defendants suppression motion and finds
that the evidence supports defendants conviction on the conspiracy
count.