United States v. Drew
894 F.2d 965 (1990)
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the "use" of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense does not require the weapon to be discharged or brandished; the mere presence and ready availability of the firearm at a location where drugs are dealt is sufficient, as it serves to protect the drug operation.
Facts:
- Earl Drew, Dennis Drew, and Hampton Stewart operated a drug house where they engaged in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and convert it into cocaine base ('crack').
- Several undercover drug purchases occurred at the residence shared by the conspirators.
- Earl Drew bartered cocaine to acquire a .357 magnum revolver.
- During a search of the house, the .357 revolver was found in Earl Drew's bedroom, along with drugs, paraphernalia, and a large amount of cash.
- A government witness testified that Earl Drew would carry the gun with him when answering the door for late-night callers at the drug house.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Earl Drew, Dennis Drew, and Hampton Stewart.
- The defendants were tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the court of first instance.
- The jury found Earl Drew guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense.
- Earl Drew, the appellant, appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient for the firearm conviction.
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 conviction for "using" a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) require evidence that the defendant discharged or explicitly threatened to discharge the weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowman, J.
No. A conviction for "using" a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) does not require the defendant to discharge or explicitly threaten to use the weapon; the mere presence and ready availability of a firearm at a location where drugs are being dealt is sufficient to constitute "use" in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The court reasoned that the underlying felony was not a single, discrete event but the continuous operation of a drug house. Given the recognized need for drug dealers to use firearms to protect their operations, the presence of the gun serves as a form of use. Citing its own precedent in United States v. Brett, the court held that evidence showing Earl Drew's participation in the drug house, combined with the gun's presence in his possession and control, was sufficient for a jury to find he "used" the firearm during the commission of the drug trafficking crime.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a broad interpretation of the term "use" within 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in the Eighth Circuit, confirming that the strategic presence of a firearm is legally equivalent to active employment for the purpose of the statute. By lowering the evidentiary bar from active brandishing to mere availability, the ruling makes it easier for prosecutors to secure the statute's mandatory sentencing enhancements against armed drug traffickers. The case establishes a clear precedent that the weapon's role as a tool of the trade, protecting the criminal enterprise, is sufficient to constitute "use," reflecting a judicial understanding of the inherent violence and danger of the drug trade.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Drew (1990)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"