Background
A narcotics agent received information that Timothy O. Kimmons was a large-scale methamphetamine distributor planning to resupply in Lafayette, Louisiana. On September twenty-seventh, two thousand and twenty-two, a traffic officer stopped Kimmons after he swerved over a fog line. The officer had been informed that Kimmons was possibly armed and had a history of felony drug offenses and resisting an officer with force. During a pat-down search, the officer felt a solid object in Kimmons’ pants, which turned out to be a one-pound brick of methamphetamine. Kimmons was indicted for possession with intent to distribute. He moved to suppress the evidence, which was denied, and then entered a conditional guilty plea. The district court sentenced him to two hundred sixty-two months of imprisonment and ten years of supervised release, applying a career-offender enhancement and a fifteen-year statutory minimum.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down search. The officer knew Kimmons was a large-scale drug dealer, had a history of resisting arrest with force, and was possibly armed. The stop occurred at night in a deserted area, and Kimmons appeared nervous. These factors supported the belief that Kimmons was armed and dangerous. Regarding the sentence, the court found the district court clearly erred in applying the career-offender enhancement. The defendant’s prior marijuana convictions were not controlled substance offenses because Louisiana law included hemp in its definition of marijuana at the time. The court also noted it was unclear from the record whether the prior conspiracy conviction qualified as a serious drug felony for the mandatory minimum.
What it means going forward
The ruling affirms the admissibility of evidence obtained from a pat-down when an officer has specific information about a suspect’s history of violence and involvement in the drug trade. It requires resentencing for defendants whose prior marijuana convictions included hemp, as those convictions cannot support a career-offender enhancement.