United States v. Frederick Cooper

Citation: Not availableDocket: 98-2410

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; February 3, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Frederick Cooper was convicted by a jury on multiple drug-related charges, including conspiracy and possession of cocaine base and marijuana, leading to a life sentence. He appealed on two grounds: the alleged violation of his Fourth Amendment rights due to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence from a search warrant and a challenge to a three-level sentencing enhancement based on his role in the offenses. 

Police suspected Cooper was dealing drugs from his residence in North Little Rock, where he was believed to live with Michael Butler. Darryl Jones, a cooperating informant, purchased crack cocaine from Cooper while monitored by police. During this purchase, evidence was gathered, including a trash bag containing cocaine residue and Cooper's fingerprint on a plastic bag. This led to a search warrant being issued, allowing police to enter Cooper's home without knocking due to the urgency of the situation. 

When Cooper was stopped shortly after leaving his residence, he did not provide a key. Officers forcibly entered the home, finding drugs, weapons, and paraphernalia. Cooper's motion to suppress the evidence was denied, and he was found guilty on all counts. At sentencing, enhancements for his role in the offenses and possession of a weapon resulted in a base offense level of 43, culminating in his life sentence. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Cooper claims the district court incorrectly denied his motion to suppress evidence, arguing a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights due to officers not knocking and announcing their presence before entry. The district court's factual findings are subject to a clear error review, while the assessment of whether exigent circumstances justified a no-knock entry is reviewed de novo. The common law mandates officers announce their presence, but exceptions exist for situations involving threats of violence, escape risks, or potential evidence destruction. Officer Todd Spafford testified that a SWAT team was deployed due to the high-risk nature of the operation, given that the location was barricaded, likely contained weapons, and Cooper had a violent history. The officers had a valid search warrant, and the issuing court had authorized a swift approach under cover of darkness. This context justified the urgent need for entry, and thus the action did not breach the Fourth Amendment.

Additionally, Cooper contests a three-level sentencing enhancement for a managerial role in a drug conspiracy, claiming insufficient evidence supports the district court's findings. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(b), such an enhancement applies if the defendant was a manager or supervisor in an extensive criminal activity involving five or more participants. The court's determination can only be overturned if clearly erroneous. The government sought a greater four-level enhancement, but the court granted only three levels, noting Cooper’s supplier was a larger dealer. While Cooper argues that the enhancement was unjustified, the court found sufficient evidence indicating his control over multiple participants in the conspiracy. Testimonies revealed that Cooper directed accomplices on drug-related activities, including instructing one to claim ownership of seized drugs. Consequently, the court’s finding of Cooper qualifying for the enhancement was not clearly erroneous, leading to the affirmation of the district court’s judgment.