Drug crimes

Published on: November 23, 2021

Miami Police officers’ convictions for providing protection to undercover drug dealer is upheld

Two Miami Police officers were charged and convicted in federal court with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine, for protecting drug couriers, and for possession of a firearm during and in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The investigation began with an F.B.I. investigation into police corruption in the Miami Police Department. Posing as would-be drug dealers, the F.B.I.’s investigation focused on an officer named Anderson, who agreed to cooperate. The F.B.I. created a reverse sting posing as drug dealers in need of protection for delivering drugs and money.

Wearing a wire, Anderson approached an officer named Schonton who agreed to give protection for the undercover drug dealer. When Schonton was asked if she knew other law enforcement officers willing to participate, she suggested Kelvin Harris, who become involved in this reverse sting operation designed by the F.B.I. Harris received money for his assistance from the undercover agent posing as a drug dealer. The undercover F.B.I. agent told Schonton and Harris that more officers were needed for a bigger job, and the two officers also recruited Miami Police officer Archibald. The F.B.I. set up an undercover sting that involved transporting 20 kilograms of cocaine that would arrive in Miami. The recruited officers provided protection by providing a police escort to the hotel where the undercover agents transporting the contraband. All the officers were present when the drugs were unloaded and unpacked at the hotel. Each paid $4,000.

Archibald and Harris went to trial in federal court. Archibald claimed he did not know what was going on during the first sting operation. He also argued he was entrapped then he met the undercover agents who scared him. Harris testified in his defense claiming that while he realized Schonton and Anderson were involved in illegal conduct, he decided to conduct his own surreptitious but lawful investigation by infiltrating the drug operation. The jury found Harris guilty on all counts and found Archibald guilty on most counts.

Published on: November 8, 2021

Alabama officer’s stop of a Florida driver for a violation of Alabama license tag law was valid

by The Swartz Law Firm

Braddy was pulled over by an Alabama law enforcement officer on Interstate 65 in Saraland, Alabama. Initially the officer saw Braddy react suddenly to the presence of the officer’s marked patrol vehicle. The officer then observed that Braddy’s license tag was obscured by two bicycles and because the obstruction of an Alabama license is prohibited under an Alabama statute, he was pulled over despite the fact that Braddy had a Florida plate. During the traffic stop, a drug detection dog alerted to the presence of drugs. A search discovered cocaine inside the vehicle. Braddy was charged in federal court with the federal offense of possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§841 and 846.

He challenged the seizure of the evidence arguing this was an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. First, he said the officer lacked probable cause to make the traffic stop because he incorrectly applied Alabama law to Braddy, a nonresident Florida driver, and that the mistake was not objectionably reasonable. Second, even if the stop was justified and legal, the officer illegally prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion. Third, the two police dogs that performed dog sniffs on the vehicle did not have a positive alert to justify the search.

Published on: December 28, 2020

Doctor’s conviction for unlawful distribution of Oxycodone upheld

by The Swartz Law Firm

Gayden’s career as a doctor ended after law enforcement began investigating his medical practice following tips that he was prescribing excessive amounts of Oxycodone. Drug Enforcement Agents reviewed his prescription records through the Florida Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and discovered that Gayden had a history of irregular prescribing practices including issuing scripts for opioids in higher quantities or greater potency and in greater frequency than the norm. The DEA issued a search warrant for his patient records. Through recordings made by undercover patient who visited his office they discovered long lines of patients waiting to get into Gayden’s office. Investigators also learned that Gayden insisted on cash only for his services.

Just before the five-year statute of limitations ran, a federal grand jury indicted Gayden on seven counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. section 841(a)(1). Gayden was convicted following a jury trial and sentenced to 235 months in prison.

Published on: December 5, 2020

Fourth Amendment violation saved by the inevitable discovery exception

by The Swartz Law Firm

Latecia Watkins was a supervisor at the Boca Raton, Florida, Post Office when she was arrested on for importing more than five kilograms of cocaine into the United States. Here is how it unfolded.

Two packages from Trinidad and Tobago addressed to the Boca Raton Post Office were intercepted at the international mail facility and found to contain cocaine. Law enforcement agents removed the drugs and placed a GPS tracking device with sham cocaine into the packages and put both packages into the mail stream headed to the original destinations.

The agents monitored the GPS and the Post Office’s internal tracking system. They set up surveillance of the Boca Raton Post Office the morning of August 11, 2017 when they expected the packages to be delivered. The GPS device stopped working but they were able to track the packages by the Post Office tracking system. They began to realize some strange occurrences because one of the packages addressed to a Boca Raton post office which did not have a P.O. box number was accepted without the number. Normally a package could not be received unless the addressee had a rented a post office box. The agents then suspected an inside job and the suspect was most likely a supervisor and not just an employee because a postal employee would not have access to certain aspects of the scanning system to manipulate the tracking history of the package.

Published on: December 1, 2020

RICO is not a crime of violence for a 924(c) gun possession offense

by The Swartz Law Firm

A group of brothers, relatives, and friends who operated a drug trafficking organization in Bradenton, Florida, were charged and convicted of participating in a RICO conspiracy, a drug conspiracy, and gun crimes. The defendants raised two issues in this appeal. First, whether the RICO conspiracy qualified as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and second, whether one of the defendant’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.

The defendants challenging the 924(c) conviction. Section 924(c) which makes it a crime to use, carry, or discharge a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The defendants argued here that the RICO conspiracy is not a “crime of violence”. The statute defines a crime of violence as a felony offense that (a) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another (the elements clause) or (b) that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense (the residual clause).

Published on: February 4, 2019

A single conspiracy by the Big Money Team operating in Little Havana

by The Swartz Law Firm

Dixon is an appeal by four defendants who participated in a drug conspiracy in the Little Havana area of Miami. Calling themselves the Big Money Team, they were a gang of drug dealers who also committed robberies and illegally possessed guns. Following a jury trial, they were convicted of drug trafficking, firearm possession, armed robbery, assault and conspiracy to distribute 280 grams of cocaine base. Defendant Chacon received a 420-month sentence, Defendant Altamirano was given 235 months followed by Dixon who received 144 months.

In challenging the conspiracy conviction, the defendants argued that the government failed to prove the existence of a single conspiracy to sell drugs. Each defendant argued that the evidence failed to establish that he joined the conspiracy. They also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence about the quantity of drugs they conspired to distribute. The court of appeals disagreed because it found the government presented ample evidence of a single conspiracy to sell drugs by the members of the Big Money Team through the “traps” maintained by members of the team where they sold drugs, shared customers, kept lookout for one another and cooperated to supply drugs consumers demanded. Even though drugs were sold at different locations, there was an interrelatedness of the operation. Even though the government did not establish that the conspiracy had an internal control structure, the evidence did suggest an unofficial hierarchy with Chacon and Altamirano as the top guys who called the shots.

Published on: December 2, 2018

Representing a government witness on a pending appeal definitely a conflict of interest

by The Swartz Law Firm

Stephon Williams was convicted of federal charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 following a jury trial in a Georgia federal court. Williams was charged with conspiring with his codefendant Donterius Toombs who also went trial with Williams. The government called a witness named Bennet to testify at their trial.

At the time of this trial Bennet was appealing his drug conviction by challenging his sentence enhancement for an obstruction of justice for sending a letter to Toombs, Williams’ coconspirator, asking him to cooperate on Bennett’s in exchange for a substantial payment and to market a cooperation-for-hire scheme to inmates seeking sentence reductions. The attorney representing Williams at his trial was also representing Bennet on his sentence enhancement challenge in the Eleventh Circuit court of appeals.

In his testimony Bennet did not mention Williams by name but he supported the government’s case against both Williams and Toombs by directly describing and by corroborating other witnesses’ testimony concerning the drug distribution conspiracy alleged in the indictment. In his direct examination, Bennet made no mention of his letter to Mr. Toombs or how he had received and obstruction of justice enhancement at sentencing. Toombs’ counsel cross-examined Bennet but did not bring up the topic. Williams’ counsel asked no questions when it came to his turn on cross examination.

Published on: October 11, 2018

No suppression of evidence seized during a warrantless search incident to arrest even though the officers violated the knock and announce rule

by The Swartz Law Firm

Defendants Maxi and Bland appealed their convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Their charges followed their arrest at 132 N.E. 64^th Street in Miami and the subsequent search incident to arrest at the property. Subsequently a, search warrant was issued and wiretaps were authorized.

Defendant Maxi challenged the search and seizure of drugs from the apartment that took place before the search warrant was issued. The trial court denied the motion and Maxi appealed. As to the standing issue the court found he did have standing to challenge the search because he rented the apartment and had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the duplex.

The next challenge raised concerning the search was that the police illegally entered the curtilage of the duplex when 10 officers surrounded the building at night one with his gun drawn. The government responded that the entry was permissible under the “knock and talk” Rule. The court rejected the knock and talk argument because the rule implies that the police have an owner’s implied permission to approach a home and this was not the case here where. the officers here breached the curtilage of the duplex by many going through a gate in the fence and four or five approaching the door and the rest taking up tactical positions around the exterior. But the constitutional violation did not result in the production of any evidence and there was no evidence to suggest that anything would have turned out differently if a proper knock and talk have been done. The court also upheld the district court’s finding that Maxi had opened the door voluntarily.

Published on: February 9, 2018

Case remanded because the judge failed to personally address the Defendant at sentencing

by The Swartz Law Firm

George appealed his 259 month sentence imposed after a jury trial resulted in his conviction for conspiracy to engage in drug distribution, Hobbs act robbery, possession of unauthorized access devises, and aggravated identity theft activities. He was acquitted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.

The facts in George’s case began when responded to an advertisement for luxury car rentals and met Pinkow, the owner. Unbeknownst to George, Pinkow, the owner of the car rental company was an informant for the FBI. Pinkow introduced George to Velez, a licensed barber because George expressed and interest in opening a barber salon. The salon did open and was divided into two rooms. The front room contained the barber shop and the back room contained computers, phones, embossing machines, card-scanning machines and items that had nothing to do with the barber business operating in the front room. George also kept a firearm at the front of the salon. Pinkow also rented luxury cars to a man named Banner, a successful drug dealer specializing in marijuana. Pinkow was present when Banner brought duffle bags filled with marijuana to George’s apartment and sold it to George. There was a subsequent sale to George for an amount that exceeded personal use.

Published on: January 22, 2018

New sentencing for defendant but only for a chance to address the judge

by The Swartz Law Firm

George appealed his 259 month sentence imposed after a jury trial resulted in his conviction for conspiracy to engage in drug distribution, Hobbs act robbery, possession of unauthorized access devises, and aggravated identity theft activities. He was acquitted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.

The facts in George’s case began when responded to an advertisement for luxury car rentals and met Pinkow, the owner. Unbeknownst to George, Pinkow, the owner of the car rental company was an informant for the FBI. Pinkow introduced George to Velez, a licensed barber because George expressed and interest in opening a barber salon. The salon did open and was divided into two rooms. The front room contained the barber shop and the back room contained computers, phones, embossing machines, card-scanning machines and items that had nothing to do with the barber business operating in the front room. George also kept a firearm at the front of the salon.

Pinkow also rented luxury cars to a man named Banner, a successful drug dealer specializing in marijuana. Pinkow was present when Banner brought duffle bags filled with marijuana to George’s apartment and sold it to George. There was a subsequent sale to George for an amount that exceeded personal use.