Summary
The Third Circuit affirmed Rajeri Curry’s convictions and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute heroin and fentanyl. The court held that evidence obtained from Curry’s cell phone was not subject to derivative-evidence suppression because she voluntarily provided her passcode, and any violation of Edwards v. Arizona was prophylactic rather than a constitutional violation. The court also upheld the conspiracy conviction, admission of prior drug-distribution evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and career-offender enhancement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether evidence obtained from Curry's cell phone had to be suppressed as derivative evidence of an alleged Edwards v. Arizona violation.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Curry's conspiracy conviction rather than merely establish a buyer-seller relationship.
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion by admitting Curry's prior heroin-distribution conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
- Whether Curry's prior New Jersey heroin-distribution convictions qualified her for the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
Holdings
- Derivative evidence obtained from Curry's voluntary provision of her phone passcode was not subject to suppression because an Edwards violation is a prophylactic Miranda violation rather than an underlying constitutional violation, and the exclusionary rule for derivative evidence does not extend to such a violation.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to find that Curry knowingly joined a conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl, rather than participating only in an ordinary buyer-seller relationship.
- The District Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Curry's prior heroin-distribution conviction for the nonpropensity purposes of proving knowledge and absence of mistake.
- Curry's prior New Jersey heroin-distribution convictions qualified as controlled-substance offenses for purposes of the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
Key quotations
“But we cannot exclude evidence to remedy a violation of the prophylactic rule announced in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).” (at 2)
“But, like Miranda, Edwards “is not a constitutional mandate, but judicially prescribed prophylaxis.”” (at 10)
“With no constitutional concerns, Wong Sun’s automatic exclusion of derivative evidence does not apply.” (at 10-11)
“A reasonable juror could conclude that Curry, Al-Tariq, and Shadee “shared a common goal” to distribute large quantities of heroin and fentanyl with “the intent to achieve that goal, and a tacit agreement to cooperate to achieve it.”” (at 12)
Factual background
Police investigating heroin and fentanyl trafficking arrested Curry after surveillance showed her conducting a hand-to-hand transaction with a person who later died of an overdose. After receiving Miranda warnings, Curry unequivocally requested a lawyer. Detectives nevertheless asked for consent to search her phone and, after telling her that a warrant-based extraction might erase its contents, obtained her passcode and signed consent. The phone contained incriminating text messages documenting large-volume drug transactions, and Curry also had prior New Jersey heroin-distribution convictions used at trial and sentencing.
Procedural history
Curry was indicted in the District of New Jersey for conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute heroin. The District Court denied her motion to suppress, admitted evidence from her phone and prior drug convictions, and the jury convicted her of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute. The court denied her post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal, applied the career-offender guideline, and sentenced her to 216 months. The Third Circuit affirmed.