United States v. Reccko
1998 WL 442681, 151 F.3d 29 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of the abuse of a position of trust sentencing enhancement under USSG § 3B1.3, a position of trust is defined by the presence of professional or managerial discretion and significantly less supervision. Merely having access to sensitive information by virtue of one's employment is insufficient to qualify as holding a position of trust.
Facts:
- Shirley P. Reccko was a civilian employee working as a receptionist and switchboard operator at the Warwick, Rhode Island police headquarters.
- Her duties consisted of handling incoming telephone calls and notifying personnel of visitors at the stationhouse.
- On December 14, 1995, Reccko observed several groups of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents arriving at the police station to see a narcotics detective.
- Reccko telephoned her friend, Patrick Vigneau, a known drug dealer, and informed him of the DEA agents' presence.
- Acting on Reccko's tip, Vigneau instructed his supplier to cancel a large marijuana delivery that had been scheduled for that evening.
- The DEA agents at the station had been preparing to intercept that specific drug delivery, and Reccko's tip thwarted their operation.
Procedural Posture:
- Shirley P. Reccko pled guilty in federal district court to unlawfully giving notice of an impending search and seizure.
- At the disposition hearing, the government argued for a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG § 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust.
- The district court, over Reccko's objection, applied the enhancement, raising the Guideline Sentencing Range from 10-16 months to 15-21 months.
- The court imposed a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment.
- Reccko (appellant) appealed her sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the district court's application of the position-of-trust enhancement.
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 a civilian police department receptionist/switchboard operator, whose job involves no significant professional or managerial discretion, hold a 'position of public trust' for the purposes of the sentencing enhancement under USSG § 3B1.3?
Opinions:
Majority - Selya, Circuit Judge
No. A civilian police department receptionist does not hold a position of public trust under the sentencing guidelines because the position is not characterized by professional or managerial discretion. The court reasoned that the term 'position of public or private trust' has a special meaning within the sentencing guidelines, as explained in the official commentary. This commentary defines such positions as those involving 'substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference' and being 'subject to significantly less supervision.' The court found that the district court erred by conflating access to sensitive information with holding a position of trust. Reccko's job, which was closely supervised and involved no discernible discretion, was analogous to a bank teller or hotel clerk—positions explicitly excluded from the enhancement by the guideline commentary. The court rejected the government's argument that the sensitive nature of the police department as an employer automatically confers trust status upon all its employees, distinguishing Reccko's clerical role from that of a police officer who regularly exercises significant discretion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the application of the USSG § 3B1.3 'position of trust' enhancement, emphasizing that the determinative factor is the nature of the defendant's job duties, not merely their access to sensitive information or the nature of their employer. It reinforces the binding authority of the Sentencing Guideline commentary and solidifies the two-step inquiry required for applying the enhancement. The ruling protects lower-level, non-discretionary employees from receiving the same sentencing increase as fiduciaries or managers who betray a higher degree of trust. This precedent requires sentencing courts to conduct a functional analysis of an employee's role rather than making assumptions based on the work environment.
