Background
Malik McKenzie was convicted of possession with intent to distribute various controlled substances, possession of a machinegun, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon following a traffic stop where he fled and crashed. He also pled guilty to obstructing justice by attempting to bribe a juror. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, the admission of evidence of past drug sales, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the procedural reasonableness of his sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the magistrate judge’s credibility finding regarding the officer was not clearly erroneous, establishing reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court held that evidence of prior drug sales was admissible under Rule four zero four B to prove intent and was not unfairly prejudicial given the limiting instruction. The court found no merit in the sufficiency of the evidence claim and determined the sentencing enhancements were not clearly erroneous.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the standard for reasonable suspicion based on observed traffic violations and the admissibility of prior bad acts to prove intent in drug trafficking cases.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download