U.S. v. Scott

Decision Date19 February 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07-1914.,07-1914.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darnyell SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Stuart D. Fullerton (argued), Brian Hayes, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Phillip John Oliver (argued), Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before, FLAUM, RIPPLE, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

On October 22, 2004, based upon intercepted calls and surveillance of Defendant Darnyell Scott, Chicago Police Department officers stopped Scott and searched his vehicle, finding $7,400 in cash and approximately one kilogram of cocaine. Scott filed a motion to suppress this evidence, which the district court denied and Scott now appeals. Because we find that probable cause for the search existed and a warrant was not necessary, we affirm.

I. Background

As part of an investigation into drug trafficking and police corruption, a federal judge authorized officers to wiretap James Walker's telephone. Walker's telephone was wiretapped from approximately October 6, 2004 until December 4, 2004, during which time officers intercepted calls between Walker and Scott on October 19-October 22.

Particularly relevant to this case is Scott's intercepted call to Walker on the evening of October 21. Scott concedes that this conversation concerned whether Walker could resuscitate a batch of marijuana in Scott's possession that had apparently gone stale and lost its intoxicating effect. During this call, Scott asked Walker, "is there a way you can take something and make it beautiful," to which Walker replied, "Depending how bad it is and the definition of bad." Scott then described that the marijuana's "color ain't nothing," with Walker responding that "when the color dead, it's over." After Scott went on to state how much marijuana he had ("probably about fifteen"), Walker said he would need to look at the marijuana, explaining that, "you might think the color might not be right, that might not really be it ... I really gotta look at it, and I'll be able to tell you, ... cause when I look at it I can tell you better than you explain it to me ..." Walker then went on to state, "I got a couple of tricks that might be able to salvage, what you're talking about," and mentioned that this "trick" could take a couple days to work. Scott indicated he would split any profit from the marijuana "down the middle" with Walker. Walker said, "All I got to do is look at it, and then, we'll, we'll go to the lab." Defendant and Walker decided to meet the next day so that Walker could look at the marijuana, with Walker saying "let's put it together in the morning then baby," and Defendant replying, "ten, four."

The following day, on October 22, officers intercepted a call from Scott to Walker at 11:41 a.m. Scott said, "I'm a ready to do that, you said you already got that thing, so I'm a, just come to you." Walker replied, "yeah, yeah, I got one." About fifteen minutes later, Scott again contacted Walker, and Walker, in a series of communications, directed Scott to an address in Markham, Illinois, where the two were to meet. Although officers did not see Scott arrive at this location, they later realized, through their surveillance, that Scott had been directed to Walker's residence. At 12:40 p.m., officers observed Walker arriving at this same house.

At 12:41 p.m., officers intercepted a call between Walker and an unknown male, and officers understood this call to be about drug business. Walker told the unknown male, "I am making a move, real quick," and after speaking to the unknown male again at 1:36 p.m., told him, "dude ready, I'm a, I'm about to leave from where I'm at in about 10 minutes." The unknown male responded, "Mike gonna run that to you."

After about another fifteen minutes, at approximately 1:50 p.m., officers observed Walker and a person later identified as Scott leave the house in separate vehicles, traveling in tandem. A few minutes later, both Scott's Nissan Maxima and Walker's vehicle were observed pulling into a gas station. Scott was then seen approaching a trash dumpster on the gas station premises, before both Scott and Walker again drove off in separate vehicles.

Scott was then stopped at 2:06 p.m. by Chicago Police Department officers as part of this investigation. The officers approached Scott as he walked away from his vehicle to a sandwich shop. The officers identified Scott and requested permission to search his vehicle. Despite Scott's declination, the officers proceeded to search his vehicle, locating $7,400 in cash in the interior and a bag of suspected cocaine in a speaker box in the trunk. The officers seized these items, but did not arrest Scott at that time, due to the ongoing investigation.

Scott was charged by indictment on March 25, 2005, with possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On May 19, 2005, Scott filed a motion to suppress the cocaine and money seized by the officers on October 22, 2004. At a hearing on June 16, 2005, the district court found that probable cause existed and denied Scott's motion to suppress, with the caveat that if the case went to trial and the district court heard the tapes of the intercepted calls, that Scott would be permitted to argue that the tone of the conversations indicated that probable cause was inapplicable. The case, however, did not go to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • United States v. Eymann
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 12 Junio 2020
    ...there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." United States v. Scott , 516 F.3d 587, 589 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Admissions of crime, like admissions against proprietary interests, carry their own indici......
  • U.S. v. Alexander
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 21 Julio 2009
    ...believe that the bag contained a gun, which was contraband when possessed by Alexander, a known convicted felon. See United States v. Scott, 516 F.3d 587, 589 (7th Cir.2008) ("Probable cause to search exists `where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasona......
  • U.S. v. Zahursky
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 1 Septiembre 2009
    ...found during the search of his vehicle. We review the district court's determination of probable cause de novo. United States v. Scott, 516 F.3d 587, 589 (7th Cir.2008). A warrantless search is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject to a few well-established exceptions. Ariz......
  • U.S. v. Seymour
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 24 Marzo 2008
    ...2000 traffic stop, we need not address whether the search and seizure was justified by reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Scott, 516 F.3d 587, 590 (7th Cir.2008). 4. Andre Lawrence does not challenge the knowledge element of his § 924(c) ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT