United States v. Wicks
1993 WL 191089, 995 F.2d 964 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Law enforcement may conduct a warrantless arrest in a motel room if exigent circumstances exist, such as a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and may flee or destroy evidence, and the affidavit for a subsequent search warrant is valid if supported by probable cause and particularity, even when relying on boilerplate descriptions for drug-related items; furthermore, in federal sentence enhancement proceedings, a defendant challenging a prior conviction based on a guilty plea bears the burden of proving its constitutional invalidity, especially for pre-Boykin convictions.
Facts:
- Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents began an investigation into James T. Wicks in Oklahoma City, assisted by Darryl Skaggs, who was arrested on drug charges and agreed to help investigate Wicks as a methamphetamine supplier.
- Skaggs informed DEA agents that Wicks traveled between California and Oklahoma in an eight-day cycle to pick up and distribute drugs, usually stayed in two adjoining rooms at the Drover’s Inn for drug business, and had carried a firearm on at least one occasion.
- DEA agents arranged for Skaggs to call Wicks from a different motel, the Meridian Plaza, and taped these conversations, which corroborated Skaggs' information and revealed Wicks' attempt to recruit Skaggs for methamphetamine manufacturing chemicals.
- DEA agents tried to get Wicks to come to the Meridian Plaza, but Wicks arrived on the morning of August 9th, then left abruptly, with subsequent calls indicating his suspicion and discomfort about the Meridian Plaza.
- DEA agents observed Wicks' motel rooms at the Drover's Inn and, believing Wicks was increasingly nervous, might flee soon due to his travel cycle, and was potentially armed, decided there was insufficient time to procure an arrest or search warrant before apprehending him.
- Agents called Wicks' motel room, an unidentified person answered the door and allowed agents to enter, leading to Wicks' arrest, during which agents observed white powder in plain view on a nightstand.
- After securing the room, Agent McCullough drafted an affidavit seeking a search warrant, relying on Skaggs' information, taped phone conversations, and the plain view observation of the white powder, listing various items generally associated with drug trafficking.
- Upon obtaining the search warrant, agents searched the motel rooms, seizing firearms, controlled substances, and two locked briefcases which, when opened, contained documents, guns, small quantities of substances, and drug formulae.
Procedural Posture:
- James T. Wicks was charged with eight counts related to drug trafficking and firearm offenses.
- Wicks filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from his motel rooms, arguing his warrantless arrest was illegal and the subsequent search warrant invalid.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Wicks' motion to suppress.
- The district court denied Wicks' motion to suppress.
- At trial, the court permitted the admission of papers containing drug formulae found in briefcases, over Wicks' objection that they were inadmissible hearsay.
- A jury convicted Wicks on all eight counts.
- The government filed a Notice of Eligibility for Sentence Enhancement, arguing Wicks qualified as an armed career criminal based on three prior first-degree robbery convictions from 1963 in California.
- Wicks challenged the sentence enhancement, contending his 1963 guilty pleas were unconstitutionally invalid due to a lack of affirmative record showing a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights.
- The district court found Wicks failed to meet his burden to establish the constitutional invalidity of his prior guilty pleas.
- The district court sentenced Wicks to a total of 387 months imprisonment, applying the armed career criminal enhancement.
- Wicks appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the district court err in denying James T. Wicks' motion to suppress evidence, finding that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless arrest in his motel room and that the subsequent search warrant was supported by probable cause and particularity? 2. Did the district court err in admitting documents found in Wicks' motel room, identified as drug recipes and chemical lists, over a hearsay objection? 3. Did the district court err in enhancing Wicks' sentence as an "armed career criminal," despite Wicks' argument that his 1963 state court guilty pleas were constitutionally invalid because the record did not affirmatively show he knowingly and intelligently waived his rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephen H. Anderson
Yes, the district court correctly denied Wicks' motion to suppress evidence, as exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search warrant was valid. The court found that exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry into Wicks' motel room for arrest, despite the general rule requiring a warrant for dwelling entries. These circumstances included the agents' reasonable belief that Wicks possessed contraband and firearms, that he was becoming anxious and might destroy evidence or flee in his car soon due to his observed nervousness and typical travel cycle, and that apprehending him in the motel room would be safer for both officers and the public. The court emphasized that the government bears the burden of proving exigency, but that these factors, viewed from the perspective of prudent, cautious, and trained officers, supported the conclusion. The court affirmed the search warrant's validity, holding it was supported by probable cause based on Skaggs' information, recorded phone conversations, and the white powder observed in plain view (which was admissible because the warrantless arrest was deemed lawful). The warrant also met the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, as the broad, generic terms used to describe items to be seized (e.g., records, paraphernalia, currency) are permissible for drug trafficking investigations, and the search of locked briefcases was within the scope of the lawful search. Furthermore, the court held that the drug formula papers were not hearsay because they were admitted to show Wicks' involvement in drug trafficking, not for the truth of their contents. Finally, the court affirmed the sentence enhancement, ruling that Boykin v. Alabama (which requires an affirmative record of a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights) does not apply retroactively to Wicks' 1963 convictions or to collateral attacks on final judgments, as established by Parke v. Raley. In such collateral challenges under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the burden rests entirely on the defendant to prove the actual constitutional invalidity of the prior conviction. Wicks failed to meet this burden by not providing any evidence that his pleas were actually involuntary or unknowing under the 1963 standards, despite being represented by counsel and having prior criminal experience.
Concurring - Ebel
Yes, the judgment affirming Wicks' conviction and sentence should be upheld, but for different reasons regarding the warrantless arrest. Judge Ebel respectfully disagreed with the majority's conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into Wicks' motel room. He argued that the exigent circumstances exception did not apply because the DEA agents knew most of the allegedly exigent circumstances (Wicks' drug involvement, armaments, and imminent departure) at least a day before the warrantless search, providing ample time to obtain a warrant. This delay, he stated, undermines any claim of immediate exigency, as exigency implies insufficient time to obtain a warrant. He also found the district court's factual findings regarding exigency to be inadequate, consisting of "conjecture, vague concerns, and convenience" rather than the urgency required to override Fourth Amendment protections for a dwelling. Consequently, Judge Ebel believed the warrantless arrest was illegal, rendering the white powder observed in plain view as "fruit of the poisonous tree." However, he concurred in the judgment because he found that the remaining evidence recited in the affidavit, excluding the plain view powder, was still sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, thus justifying the seizure of evidence and ultimately the conviction.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the burden of proof placed on defendants in federal sentence enhancement proceedings when challenging the constitutionality of prior state convictions. By applying Parke v. Raley, the Tenth Circuit clarified that Boykin v. Alabama's requirements for an affirmative record of rights waiver do not retroactively apply to pre-1969 convictions or to collateral attacks, shifting the onus entirely to the defendant to prove actual involuntariness. The ruling also provides important guidance on the parameters of "exigent circumstances" for warrantless dwelling entries, emphasizing factors like flight risk, evidence destruction, and officer/public safety, while also clarifying the standard for particularity in search warrants related to ongoing drug operations, allowing for broad, generic descriptions when specific details are unavailable but probable cause for the criminal enterprise exists. This impacts future cases by making it harder for defendants to collaterally attack old convictions for sentencing purposes and by affirming broad warrant language in complex drug investigations.
