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:
The Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless arrest in a dwelling when exigent circumstances, such as a belief that the suspect poses an immediate danger or may flee and destroy evidence, are present and not subject to police manipulation. In collateral challenges to prior convictions for sentence enhancement, the defendant bears the full burden of proving the conviction's constitutional invalidity, especially for pre-Boykin pleas, with no presumption of invalidity from an incomplete record.
Facts:
- On August 7, 1991, Darryl Skaggs, after being arrested on drug charges, agreed to assist DEA agents in Oklahoma City in their investigation of James T. Wicks, identified by Skaggs as a methamphetamine supplier.
- Skaggs informed DEA agents that Wicks followed an eight-day cycle of travel between California and Oklahoma, distributing drugs and collecting payments, typically conducting his drug business from adjoining rooms at the Drover's Inn in Oklahoma City, and had, on at least one occasion, carried a firearm.
- From the afternoon of August 8 to the morning of August 9, DEA agents monitored and taped several phone calls between Skaggs (from a different motel, the Meridian Plaza) and Wicks, which corroborated Skaggs' information and revealed Wicks' attempt to recruit Skaggs to obtain a chemical for methamphetamine manufacturing.
- On the morning of August 9, Wicks briefly visited the Meridian Plaza motel but left "rather suddenly and abruptly," and a subsequent phone call indicated Wicks was suspicious and uncomfortable there, leading agents to conclude Wicks feared a setup.
- Later on August 9, after observing Wicks' motel rooms and summoning additional agents, the DEA agents decided there was insufficient time to obtain an arrest or search warrant, believing Wicks was increasingly nervous, indicated his time in Oklahoma was "about up," appeared to be disengaging from Skaggs, was known to carry a firearm, and might depart shortly around his presumed noon check-out time.
- The agents then called Wicks' motel room, and upon an unidentified person opening the door and allowing entry, they arrested Wicks and observed a white powder, suspected to be methamphetamine or a cutting agent, in plain view on a nightstand.
- Following Wicks' arrest, Agent McCullough drafted an affidavit for a search warrant, incorporating information from Skaggs, the taped phone conversations, and the white powder observed in plain view, and requesting the seizure of items broadly described as reflecting drug trafficking.
- After obtaining the search warrant, agents searched Wicks' motel rooms, seizing firearms, controlled substances, and two locked briefcases; upon opening the briefcases, they found documents, two guns, small quantities of controlled substances, and sheets of paper containing formulae for making crack cocaine and methamphetamine and a list of precursor chemicals.
- Wicks had three prior convictions for first-degree robbery in California in 1963, which were entered simultaneously in a single judicial proceeding after he pled guilty to those offenses, and for which only an incomplete transcript of the plea hearing exists.
Procedural Posture:
- DEA agents arrested James T. Wicks in his motel room without a warrant.
- DEA agents obtained a search warrant for Wicks' motel rooms.
- Wicks filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his motel rooms in the federal district court.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied Wicks' motion to suppress.
- Wicks was convicted by a jury in the district court on eight counts related to drug trafficking.
- The government filed a Notice of Eligibility for Imposition of Sentence Under the Enhanced Penalty Provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), seeking to sentence Wicks as an armed career criminal based on prior California robbery convictions.
- The district court sentenced Wicks as an armed career criminal to a total of 387 months imprisonment.
- 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. Does the Fourth Amendment permit a warrantless arrest of a suspect in his motel room based on exigent circumstances, even though police had prior probable cause to seek a warrant, if officers reasonably believe the suspect might flee, destroy evidence, or pose a danger to public safety? 2. Did the search warrant for James Wicks' motel rooms satisfy the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and particularity requirements, given that some evidence was initially observed during a warrantless entry and items were described in broad terms common to drug trafficking investigations? 3. Are documents containing drug recipes and chemical lists, found in a drug trafficking suspect's possession, inadmissible hearsay if offered to infer the suspect's involvement in drug trafficking, rather than to prove the truth of the assertions within the documents? 4. In sentence enhancement proceedings under the Armed Career Criminal Act, does the defendant or the government bear the burden of proving the constitutional validity of a prior guilty plea, particularly when the plea occurred before Boykin v. Alabama and the plea record is incomplete?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephen H. Anderson
Yes, the warrantless arrest of James Wicks in his motel room was justified by exigent circumstances and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The district court's findings—that Wicks was increasingly nervous, suspicious of a setup at the Meridian Plaza, nearing the end of his travel cycle, potentially planning to flee, and sometimes armed—created a reasonable belief for prudent and trained officers that immediate action was necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence, ensure public safety, and avoid a dangerous apprehension on the open highway. These indications of exigency were not police-created and involved serious drug trafficking crimes, satisfying the government's burden of proof. Yes, the search warrant for Wicks' motel rooms was supported by probable cause and met the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. The white powder observed in plain view during the valid warrantless arrest, combined with Skaggs' credible information and the corroborating taped phone conversations, provided a substantial basis for the magistrate to issue the warrant. Furthermore, in complex drug trafficking investigations, where specific details may be limited, warrants describing items in broad, generic terms (such as drug paraphernalia, records, and currency commonly associated with drug dealing) are permissible and meet the particularity requirement, especially when supported by an agent's experience and expertise. The search of the locked briefcases was also a permissible part of a lawful search of the premises. No, the documents containing drug recipes and chemical lists were not inadmissible hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of any assertions within the documents. Instead, their admission served the non-hearsay purpose of allowing the jury to infer Wicks' involvement in drug trafficking, demonstrating his knowledge and connection to the preparation and possession of illegal drugs. No, the district court did not err in finding Wicks subject to enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act based on his 1963 guilty pleas. The Supreme Court's ruling in Parke v. Raley clarified that Boykin v. Alabama's requirement for explicit on-the-record waivers does not apply retroactively or to collateral attacks on final judgments for sentence enhancement purposes. Instead, a "presumption of regularity" attaches to final judgments. Consequently, the defendant bears the entire burden of proving the constitutional invalidity of a prior conviction. Wicks failed to present any evidence that his 1963 pleas were actually involuntary or unknowing under the legal standards applicable at that time (which emphasized understanding charges and acting freely, without coercion). His representation by counsel, favorable plea bargain, prior criminal experience, and nearly thirty-year delay in challenging the convictions further support the conclusion that his pleas were knowing and voluntary.
Concurring - Ebel
I concur with the judgment affirming Wicks' conviction and sentence, but I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry into Wicks' motel room. I believe that the exigent circumstances exception should not apply because the officers were aware of most of the facts they claimed as 'exigent' (Wicks' involvement in drug trafficking, his armed status, and his impending departure) for at least a full day before the warrantless search. This ample time would have allowed them to obtain a warrant, and exigency inherently requires insufficient time to do so. Furthermore, the district court's findings regarding Wicks' 'anxiety' or the arrest being 'safer' or 'easier' are, in my view, too vague and conjectural to meet the high standard required for disregarding Fourth Amendment protections for a dwelling. However, despite my belief that the initial warrantless arrest was illegal and the observation of white powder was 'fruit of the poisonous tree' and thus could not support probable cause, I agree with the majority that the remaining information in the search warrant affidavit (Skaggs' tips and the recorded phone calls) was independently sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant. Therefore, the subsequent search of the motel room and seizure of evidence was lawful, and the conviction should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on the application of the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances doctrine, particularly in the context of drug investigations involving mobile and potentially armed suspects. It underscores the high bar for justifying warrantless entries into dwellings, even for serious crimes, by requiring clearly defined and immediate indicators of exigency not subject to police manipulation. More significantly, the opinion solidifies the principle that in collateral attacks on prior convictions for sentence enhancement, Boykin v. Alabama's procedural requirements do not retroactively apply, and defendants bear the heavy burden of overcoming the "presumption of regularity" that attaches to final judgments. This allocation of the burden of proof is vital for the stability of past convictions and streamlining recidivism sentencing provisions, limiting the grounds on which old pleas can be challenged. The case also offers practical guidance on the particularity of search warrants in complex drug cases where the full scope of evidence may not be precisely known beforehand.
