On the evening of September 22, 2009 Jamie Shetler called the Pomona, California police department to report that her father, Scott, was using and manufacturing methamphetamine in his house. The police immediately went to the house. The garage attached to the residence was open and according to the officers a chemical odor emanated from the garage. The rear portion of the garage was partitioned off. In order to determine if anyone was behind the partition or whether methamphetamine was in the process of being manufactured the officers entered the garage. While they saw a few items associated with methamphetamine they did not see anyone and nothing was being manufactured.

The officers left the garage and knocked on the front door. Scott Shetler came out a side door. He was handcuffed and detained outside the house. Officers entered the house and began searching it. Guns and items associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine were found.

Half way through the search they obtained a waiver from Shetler’s girl friend. At no time did the officers obtain a search warrant.

In the early hours of the 23rd Scott Shettler gave a statement in which he confessed and he was arrested. The next day the DEA took him to the house, found another gun and took a statement about the gun. The trial court suppressed all of the physical evidence except that which was found in the original search of the garage but it allowed the various statements to come into evidence. On appeal admission of the statements was contested.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the government failed to carry its burden to show that Shetler’s statements were not the product of the illegal searches. A statement is considered the fruit of an illegal search if the officers confront the defendant with evidence illegally taken or if the defendant’s statement is a result of his knowledge of the government’s possession of items illegally taken. There was no evidence at the hearing that Shetler was not confronted with illegally seized items and as he was detained he watched the government seize numerous items which the court later decided to be seized illegally.

Not only were the statements the result of the illegally seizure, they were not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal acts. “Three factors are relevant in determining whether Shetler’s statements were sufficiently attenuated from the underlying illegality to be admissible: (1) the temporal proximity of the search to the confession; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” The Ninth Circuit found that the searches were sufficiently close to the statements as to not be overly attenuated. The initial confession occurred outside Shetler’s house during the search. While the second statement was made a couple days later there were no intervening circumstances that would have influenced Shetler to confess as “to dissipate the taint.” The officers were clearly looking for evidence without a search warrant. They waited until the search was half over before getting consent. There lack of good faith is apparent.

The evidence at the trial that Shetler maintained the residence for a primary or principle use was the manufacture, distribution, or use of methamphetamine was weak and the statements were a major part of the government’s case. Therefore the conviction was reversed and the case remanded to the District Court.

Humboldt County California prosecutors charge Maggie Jean Wortman with murder of her six week old son who died from methamphetamine poisoning. Authorities say the baby consumed methamphetamine while drinking his mother’s breast milk.

Initially Wortman was charged with involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment but last week the prosecutor upped the charges to second degree murder. Second degree murder requires malice aforethought or “an abandoned and malignant heart.” An abandoned and malignant heart” is defined as “reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk of death.”

Prosecutors be ware: the only person convicted of second degree murder in California for transmitting methamphetamine to a baby in breast feeding, Any Leanne Priem, had her conviction reversed by an appellate court.

It is unlikely that prosecutors will claim that Wortman showed malice aforethought since there is no evidence that she wanted to kill the child.

But it is going to be almost as difficult to prove “reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk of death.” First they are going to have to show that Wortman knew that methamphetamine in breast milk could be transmitted to a child in breast milk and that she knew that methamphetamine could kill a child. The district attorney will also have to prove that Wortman’s addiction gave her a choice to use or not use the drug. If she was so addicted to methamphetamine that she had no choice but to take methamphetamine she was not reckless.

But the one thing for sure is that meth is no good for you whether or not you are breast feeding a child.

The story started out with two former Antioch, California police officers, Norman Wielsch, who was the head of the Central Contra Costa Narcotics Enforcement Team (CNET), and Christopher Butler, who now has a private detective agency, being arrested on drug charges. It was alleged that Wielsch stole drugs from CNET and provided them to Butler who sold them and presumably shared the profits. Twenty-eight felony charges are pending against Wielsch and Butler. Dirty cops–big deal. But as the story has evolved it turns out that Butler represented some women in child custody matters. In order to get custody for their children and to blacken the fathers, he hired decoys to get the men drunk. Then he arranged for a third former Antioch police officer, Stephen Tanabe, now employed by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department and assigned to Daville to be waiting near the bar and to arrest the fathers for driving under the influence. Tanabe has not been charged with incidents involving the DUI’s. Rather he has been charged with drug and weapons offenses.

CNET’s operations have been suspended pending a state audit.

Wielsch, Butler and Tanabe are now out on bail. But at a bail hearing for Butler the district attorney played a video of Butler kidnapping a boy, with Wielsch present, and stealing 4000 Xanax pills found in the boy’s room to scare him from being involved with drugs. In the video Butler and several of his employees impersonated police officers. Deputy district attorney Jun Fernandez said they may be charged with kidnapping. The Xanax was found when officers searched Butler’s possessions after he was arrested.

Paying to have people arrested is about as corrupt as you can get.

The Supreme Court ruled, yesterday, in Pepper v. United States that following an appeal that requires a resentencing the trial court can consider the defendant’s post trial rehabilitation.

Jason Pepper plead guilty to participating in a methamphetamine conspiracy. Although the guidelines were 97 to 121 months the court sentenced him to 24 months based upon his giving substantial assistance to the government. The prosecution only recommended a 15 per cent reduction and it appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court granted the appeal and ordered the trial court to resentence Pepper.

By the time of the resentencing Pepper was out of custody. He testified that he was going to a junior college and that he had made straight A’s. He also had a job where he was doing quite well. His father testified that he had not seen Jason for five years prior to his conviction but that Jason was more mature now and that they were getting along well. His parole officer also testified that Jason was doing well and that 24 months satisfied the goals of incarceration. Furthermore while Jason was in prison he completed a 500 hour drug program and he was no longer using narcotics.

The Court again sentenced him to 24 months based upon a 40 per cent reduction from the guidelines for substantial assistance and a 59 per cent reduction for inter alia post sentencing rehabilitation. The government again appealed. The Eighth Circuit again reversed finding that use of post conviction rehabilitation is inappropriate.

On the third sentencing he was sentenced to 65 months and he appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. It sent it back to the Eighth Circuit for consideration of Gall v. United States, 552 U. S. 38 (2007). The Eighth Circuit found Gall inappropriate and returned the case to the trial court for resentencing. He was again sentenced to 65 months and appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court again granted certiorari.

This time it ruled that there is a long history of allowing trial judges to use a broad range of evidence in sentencing and 18 USC 3577 states:

No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.

Despite the fact that 18 U. S. C. §3742(g)(2) limits evidence at a resentencing to the evidence considered at the original sentencing the Supreme Court found that evidence of rehabilitation can be used at resentencing. Section 18 U. S. C. 3742(g)(2) along with the guidelines was part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. While the mandatory nature of the guidelines and some sections were found unconstitutional in Booker the Booker Court did not discuss Section 3742(g)(2). However the same reasons apply and Section 3742(g)(2) can lead to unconstitutionally high sentences and therefore it must be found unconstitutional.

But one has to wonder if evidence of rehabilitation can be used to reduce the sentencing on resentencing after an appeal why not allow a defendant, after they have completed a significant part of their sentence, to apply for a reduction if they show evidence of rehabilitation. Why not allow rehabilitated convicts to return to court while completing their sentence or while on supervised release to show that they have been rehabilitated and no longer need to be incarcerated or under supervision? If they are no longer likely to reoffend and they are no longer a danger to society they should be released. This is particularly true if they can show that they have learned coping and employment skills that will allow them to survive without committing future crimes. By shortening incarceration periods it will also save tax dollars. This will give convicts a considerable impetus to get job skills, stop using drugs, and become rehabilitated. Eventually they will be released anyway and if they can prove rehabilitation we will all be safer.

The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision upholding a search at the residence of Pamela Robbins.

Officer Bruce Rhoads of the Tama County Sheriff’s Department obtained a search warrant for Robbins residence and for the residence of Michael Watson. The search warrant was based upon Rhoads’ experience, Watson’s criminal history, Watson’s purchases of pseudoephedrine, Robbins’ purchases of pseudoephedrine, suspicious traffic near Watson’s house, and the presence of Robbins’ car parked at Watson’s house. Pseudoephedrine is a drug commonly found in cold medications and it can be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

During the search of the houses drug related items were found. Robbins and Watson were charged with various drug charges.

The Fourth Amendment mandates that a search warrant must be supported by probable cause. In other words there must be a nexus between criminal activity and the place to be searched. The nexus must be great enough that “under the totality of the circumstances a person of reasonable prudence would believe that evidence of a crime might be located on the premises to be searched.”

Nowhere was it alleged that Robbins purchased pseudoephedrine in amounts that exceeded the legal maximum or that she purchased it more often than permitted by law. The appellate court ordered the suppression of all evidence found at Robbins’ home due to the lack of probable cause. Probable cause, according to the court cannot be based purely upon the legal purchase of a precursor drug.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the search of three residences in a Kansas City methamphetamine case in United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Mark King set up surveillance at 323 South Brighton Avenue. Along with other agents he decided to conduct a “knock and talk.” A “knock and talk” is used by narcotics agents when they want to search a residence but they do not have probable cause to get a search warrant. They knock on the front door and when someone answers it they try to talk their way into the house and get consent from the residents to search the house. Of course the residents do not have to answer the door. Nor do they have to talk to the officers or give them permission to enter the house.

But King was either good or lucky. Justino Ruiz-Ramos answered the door. He said he did not live at the residence but Salvador Jesus Velasco-Saldana came to the door. Velasco-Saldana said he resided there and gave the officers permission to enter. He consented to the officers searching the residence. They found methamphetamine and related items. They interviewed Velasco-Saldana and he told them that Gerardo sold him three pounds of methamphetamine and that Gerardo’s brother delivered it. He drew the officers a map explaining how to get to Gerardo’s house.

Several officers including King and Luis Ortiz of the Kansas City Police Department Gang Unit went to 430 Donnelly Avenue and conducted another “knock and talk.” Miguel Angel Garcia-Bobadilla answered the door and again the officers were let in. They asked Garcia-Bobadilla if he was alone. When he answered yes they asked asked if they could perform a protective sweep in order to confirm that no one else was in the house. He gave permission. A protective sweep is done to make sure the officers are safe while in the house. But they also know that any illegal substances they see in “plain view” can be seized. They found a significant amount of methamphetamine in the house.

During the sweep they ran into Alfredo and Dehli Hernando-Pena. Alfredo and Garcia-Bobadilla said they lived in the house. Both gave verbal and written consent to the search. Dehli agreed to cooperate. She told them that Alfredo’s brothers lived at 3907 East 12th Terrace. After the officers search the Donnelly Avenue house they went to the 12th Terrace house. They knocked on the door and Gerardo answered. While talking to Gerardo they noticed Alphonso entering the kitchen with large baggies of powder and they heard what they thought to be Alphonso flushing something down the sink. The officers thinking that evidence was being destroyed entered the residence without a warrant.

After they were indicted the defendants brought motions to suppress the evidence. The court upheld all of the searches. As to the South Brighton Avenue search, it found that Velasco-Saldana gave consent to the entry and search. As a result it was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.While there was some question about the facts of the Donnelly Avenue search. The police claim that the residents gave their consent and the residents say the police forced their way in, the court found the officers to be credible and the residents not to be. As a result it found that the entry and search was also the result of consent. As to the 12th Terrace search there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment when exigent circumstances exist. The courts have found that the eminent destruction of evidence is an exigent circumstance allowing the authorities to enter a residence without a warrant.

The question that constantly comes up in my mind is why would anyone allow the police to enter their house and search it knowing that there is a significant amount of methamphetamine in the house. If any of the defendants had just said “no” I will not talk with you or “no” you cannot come in, or “no” you cannot search none of this would have happened and they would not have be serving decades in prison. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments give people the absolute right not to talk to the police. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments Amendments give people the right to refuse entry to any officer who does not have a search warrant into their residence and to deny the officers the right to search the residence.

Even assuming that the police do not always tell the truth it is obvious that the defendants talked themselves into being arrested. Did they think that when talking with experienced officer they could talk themselves out of being arrested–unlikely. And I do not know about this case but by talking they endanger themselves because others get arrested and they may be killed. It makes no sense.

The Federal government dismissed methamphetamine conspiracy charges against Zhenli Ye Gon. The Chinese native and Mexican businessman was accused of selling pseudoephedrine/ephedrine used in the manufacture of methamphetamine knowing that the methamphetamine would end up in the United States. But two years after Gon was indicted and incarcerated the government is admitting that it cannot prove its case.

Gon, the owner of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in Latin America went to Mongolia where he purchased 19.797 tons of hydroxy-benzil-N-methyl-acetetamine. Prior to the arrival of the chemicals in Mexico authorities seized them and used them as an excuse to search Gon’s Mexico City residence in March 2007. While they did not find any drugs in the mansion they seized 207 million U.S. dollars, 18 million Mexican pesos, 200,000 euros, 113,000 Hong Kong dollars, 11 centenarios (Mexican gold bullion coins made of 1.20565 oz t (37.5 g) of pure gold), and a great amount of jewels. Also seized were two dwellings of approximately 20 million pesos, a lab in construction of unknown value, and seven vehicles.

The seizure, which was the largest of its kind in the world, led to his indictment in the United States and to charges in Mexico. He was arrested in a Wheaton, Maryland restaurant in July 2007, but the government’s case failed to jell. Major witnesses recanted. The Mexican government refused to turn over evidence and the Chinese government put too many conditions on the US prosecutors when they wanted to depose witnesses in China. Finally the government admitted that they did not have a case and moved to dismiss.

Now Gon faces extradition to Mexico where he faces methamphetamine and weapons charges. While his lawyers will fight the extradition it is likely that he will be extradited. And that is probably what should happen. If he committed crimes those crimes occurred in Mexico–not the United States. Until 2005 the importation of pseudoephedrine was legal in Mexico. Gon legally imported it and sold it. The use of American imperial courts to charge people with drug and terrorist crimes that occur elsewhere in the world with the claim that the crimes have an effect on the United States is just an example of American imperialism. In the Twenty-First Century with the global economy practically everything has an effect on the United States. We cannot be the policemen of the world. Here the crimes, if any, occurred in Mexico. Mexico requested extradition two years ago and apparently they can do a lot better job of prosecuting Gon than the United States which kept him locked up for two years before the government realized they had no evidence against him.