United States v. Ruth Lee, United States of America v. Michael Sandmeyer
Docket: 03-1324, 03-1376
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; December 31, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Ruth Lee and Michael Sandmeyer were convicted of possessing over 500 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). Additionally, Sandmeyer was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Sandmeyer appealed, asserting errors in the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, his motion for judgment as a matter of law, and jury instructions. Lee contested the sufficiency of evidence for her conviction. The Eighth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's decisions.
The case stemmed from an investigation into Kenny Siepker's drug-related activities. Police, armed with a warrant to search for Siepker's property at the defendants' residence, requested consent to search without disclosing the warrant's existence. Both defendants consented after consultation. During the search, which included various locations on the property, police obtained additional consent to extend the search and later secured a second warrant based on evidence found in plain view.
Sandmeyer argued his consent was not voluntary because he was unaware of the officers' warrant. However, the court noted that consent to a search requires only voluntariness and does not necessitate full awareness of constitutional rights. The court emphasized that the government's burden is to demonstrate the consent's voluntariness, and factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Ultimately, the court found Sandmeyer's lack of knowledge about the warrant did not impact the voluntariness of his consent, as he did not mistakenly believe he could prevent the search.
The Supreme Court in Schneckloth established that police do not require a warrant if they have probable cause and obtain voluntary consent from the individual being searched. In this case, Mr. Sandmeyer argued that his consent was not voluntary under the totality of circumstances. However, the district court found no clear error in ruling against him. Factors considered included Mr. Sandmeyer's age (in his forties), high school graduation, some college education, and prior criminal experience, including a conviction for drug-related offenses. Although he was not informed of his Miranda rights, such warnings are not strictly necessary for consent to be deemed voluntary, though their absence may suggest potential coercion.
The court noted that Mr. Sandmeyer was not intoxicated during the search and that there was no evidence of police misconduct or intimidation; instead, officers acted courteously and allowed time for private consultation regarding the search. Mr. Sandmeyer also contended that the police exceeded the scope of his consent, which he claimed was limited to an external inspection of his boat. However, the police had asked to "look at" the boat, which was in plain sight, and there was no indication that he objected to the search. The district court's conclusion that Mr. Sandmeyer consented to a full search, including internal compartments, was reasonable and supported by the circumstances.
Mr. Sandmeyer contends that his consent to a search was coerced due to officers suggesting that he should not object if he had nothing to hide, which he argues implies an assertion of authority. He references United States v. Pena-Saiz, where consent was deemed involuntary when the individual believed she was under arrest. However, the circumstances in Pena-Saiz differ significantly; the officers did not detain Mr. Sandmeyer or conduct the search under the same intimidating conditions. Even if Mr. Sandmeyer's consent was involuntary, the court finds that the police would have inevitably discovered the evidence through lawful means, as established in Nix v. Williams. The police had a warrant to search Mr. Siepker's property, a suspected drug dealer, and this warrant permitted searches for collectibles throughout the farm, including potential hiding spots like internal boat compartments. Evidence against Mr. Sandmeyer included methamphetamine found in various locations associated with him and his residence. For defendants to overturn jury verdicts, they must demonstrate that no reasonable jury could find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence, viewed favorably towards the jury's verdict, indicated the presence of approximately three pounds of methamphetamine, divided into various quantities, thereby supporting the convictions of both Mr. Sandmeyer and Ms. Lee.
The government presented evidence against Mr. Sandmeyer and Ms. Lee, including drug scales, an electronic surveillance system, a safe, a firearm, over $60,000 in cash, and receipts for wire transfers, all found on their property. Witnesses testified that Stockton, California, is a known source of methamphetamine for Iowa, and one witness, Peggy Hoover, stated she had previously purchased drugs from Mr. Sandmeyer. The charges against them require proving four elements: possession of a controlled substance, knowledge that it is illegal, intent to distribute, and possession of at least 500 grams. The court found sufficient evidence for knowledge and quantity, but the issue of possession was more complex.
Possession can be actual or constructive, the latter requiring knowledge of the drugs, the ability to control them, and the intent to exercise that control. The jury instructions correctly included the need for intent, as mere proximity to drugs does not suffice for conviction. The defendants demonstrated their control by leading officers to the drugs and showed knowledge by producing the substance when asked. While establishing their intent to control the drugs was more challenging, the evidence of their intent to distribute also supported the inference of intent to exercise dominion, thus fulfilling the requirements for constructive possession.
A jury could reasonably infer that Mr. Sandmeyer and Ms. Lee intended to distribute drugs based on Ms. Hoover's testimony about Mr. Sandmeyer's past drug sales, evidence linking them to Stockton (a methamphetamine origin), and the presence of drug-related equipment and large cash amounts. Although the evidence was stronger against Mr. Sandmeyer, a wire transfer receipt with Ms. Lee's name and relevant contact information in her purse connected her to the drug activity. Ms. Lee argued her conviction was solely due to her association with Mr. Sandmeyer and referenced United States v. Hernandez, where insufficient evidence led to a verdict being set aside. However, her case was more similar to United States v. LaGuardia, where evidence indicated awareness of drug presence, including the wire receipt and address book. Mr. Sandmeyer contested evidence related to a handgun found in a cedar chest, claiming ignorance of its presence. The chest was located in the master bedroom they shared, where drug-related items were also found. Sandmeyer also challenged the jury instructions regarding the term "knowingly," but the court found his argument unsupported, as the term is understandable to a jury. The convictions of both defendants were affirmed.
