United States of America v. Daniel Isaac Drake
673 F.2d 15 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A collection of superficially innocent acts, when viewed together under the totality of the circumstances, can establish the probable cause necessary for a search warrant, especially when these acts form a pattern indicative of clandestine criminal activity.
Facts:
- Daniel Isaac Drake, president of the Wyvern Co., Inc., placed an order with S.G.A. Scientific, Inc. for chemicals, including phenyl 2-propanone (P2P) and methylamine, along with laboratory equipment.
- A DEA forensic chemist later advised that the combination of P2P and methylamine could only be used to manufacture methamphetamine.
- On March 8 and April 12, 1978, DEA agents observed Drake accept two deliveries of the ordered chemicals and equipment at his company's address in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- Immediately after receiving the final delivery on April 12, Drake was observed driving in a suspicious manner, including circling the same block three times, making an abrupt U-turn, and driving at five miles per hour while watching his rearview mirror.
- Following the suspicious driving incident, no activity was observed at Drake's laboratory for approximately one week.
- On April 28, Drake entered the laboratory building at midnight and remained there overnight.
- On Sunday, April 30, Drake was observed entering the laboratory at 6:00 A.M. and remaining there until 8:00 P.M.
- During surveillance on April 30, an agent observed a tri-necked flask with stoppers and other assembled lab equipment inside the laboratory.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal magistrate issued a search warrant for the Wyvern Co. laboratory based on an affidavit from a DEA agent.
- Daniel Isaac Drake was charged in a federal trial court with manufacturing methamphetamine.
- Drake filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing the warrant was not supported by probable cause.
- The trial court held a hearing and denied Drake's motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury found Drake guilty of the charged offense.
- Drake, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an affidavit detailing the purchase of legal chemicals sufficient to manufacture an illegal drug, combined with the suspect's evasive driving and unusual work hours, establish sufficient probable cause for a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Bownes, Circuit Judge
Yes. The affidavit provides sufficient facts for a magistrate to reasonably infer that the crime of illicitly manufacturing a controlled substance was probably being committed. The court reasoned that while individual facts averred in the affidavit might be capable of noncriminal explanation, their cumulative effect supported a finding of probable cause. The purchase of all requisite precursor chemicals for methamphetamine, especially two that in combination can only produce that substance, was a 'red flag' fact. This fact, combined with Drake's subsequent evasive driving, cessation of activity, and unusual work hours, created a strong inference of a clandestine drug-manufacturing operation. The court emphasized that probable cause requires only a probability of criminal activity, not a prima facie showing, and that a magistrate's determination is entitled to great deference and should be reviewed in a commonsense, rather than a hypertechnical, manner.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' standard for probable cause, affirming that a series of individually legal acts can collectively establish the probability of criminal activity. It solidifies the principle that law enforcement observations of suspicious behavior, when combined with evidence of preparation for a crime (like purchasing precursor chemicals), can justify a search warrant. The case also underscores the significant deference appellate courts give to a magistrate's initial probable cause determination, making it more difficult for defendants to succeed in suppressing evidence by dissecting an affidavit to show innocent explanations for each individual fact.
Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Daniel Isaac Drake