United States v. Broussard
In United States v. Broussard, No. 23-30126 (5th Cir. May 29, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress and affirmed the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining “a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.”
Background: In May 2021, Broussard was arrested during a drug buy-bust operation, and agents executed three residential search warrants as part of the investigation. That day, agents had seen Broussard “carrying a black Glock handgun despite being a convicted felon,” and an FBI agent reported to other officers that “Broussard was considered armed and dangerous.”
Federal agents asked for police assistance, and a Louisiana police officer stopped Broussard’s vehicle. The officer found $2,000 in cash but no gun, and he then detained Broussard in the back of his police car. Other officers used Broussard’s keys and opened the back door of his car, which allowed them to see “a bag with roughly $7,000.00 of cash protruding out of it.” They then moved the vehicle to an FBI parking lot, where they conducted an inventory search and discovered the Glock handgun under the driver’s seat.
In federal court, Broussard moved to suppress the handgun, arguing that officers had found it pursuant to a warrantless search not supported by probable cause. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. Later, the court sentenced Broussard to 162 months in prison after applying a two-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug premises.
Issue 1: Should the handgun have been suppressed? No.
The Fifth Circuit first rejected the Government’s argument that this issue was moot. In the Government’s view, Broussard was not injured by the gun’s seizure because the gun charges were ultimately dismissed as part of his conditional plea agreement. The issue was not moot for two reasons: (1) Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2) permits a defendant to withdraw his conditional guilty plea if he prevails on appeal; and (2) Broussard had moved to suppress not only the gun, but also the $9,000 in cash that officers found in his car.
The First Search: On the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that officers had probable cause to arrest Broussard and to open the back door of his vehicle based on the “possibility that the earlier-observed gun was in the car and that other occupants may be present” because the windows were so darkly tinted.
Under the collective knowledge doctrine, the arresting officer had communicated with other officers who had personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to probable cause. Notably, those agents had seen Broussard with a gun “during a drug trafficking operation on the day of the search,” and they had information that Broussard and his vehicle were involved in the drug trafficking organization that was under investigation.
The Inventory Search: “Police are not precluded from conducting an inventory search when they lawfully search the vehicle of an individual they suspect to be involved in a crime,” but their inventory search “must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.” Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990). “An inventory search is reasonable if it is conducted pursuant to standardized regulations and procedures that are consistent with ‘[1] protecting the property of the vehicle’s owner, [2] protecting the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and [3] protecting the police from danger.’” (quoting United States v. Hope, 102 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Here, the inventory search was valid because it “reduced the exposure of liability for lost or stolen items,” including the $9,000 in cash officers found in the car and on Broussard’s person. Additionally, the car had “originally [been] stopped in a dangerous location,” on the side of an interstate, and officers moved it to “protect the officers and the vehicle owner’s property.”
The Automobile Exception: “Under the automobile exception, police may stop and search a vehicle without obtaining a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband.” Here, officers met that standard. They had seen Broussard “with a handgun around a known drug trafficking house” a few hours earlier, and they found $2,000 in cash when they stopped his vehicle. That gave them probable cause to believe the car might contain more contraband.
Issue 2: Did the district court err by applying the drug-premises enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12) without proof that Broussard had a possessory interest in the house? No.
This enhancement does not require proof of a possessory interest. “The Fifth Circuit agrees with the First Circuit that ‘it would defy reason for a drug dealer to be able to evade application of the enhancement by the simple expedient of maintaining his stash house under someone else’s name.’” (quoting United States v. Jones, 778 F.3d 375, 385 (1st Cir. 2015)). And in the Fifth Circuit, application of the enhancement will be affirmed under the “deferential clear error standard” if the defendant had “unrestricted access to [the] premises.”