Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

08-4205 U.S. v. Adams

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 25, 2010//

08-4205 U.S. v. Adams

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 25, 2010//

Listen to this article

Narcotics
Constructive possession

Where the defendant accepted keys to a van, entered it, and attempted to start, he was in constructive possession of the marijuana in the van.

“Adams unequivocally manifested his assent to possession of the marijuana by taking the keys to the van, entering the van, and attempting to start it. This was the culmination of a transaction that Adams himself
had initiated with Gomez, Barrios and other co-conspirators. Bustos had hired Crawford and Bortfeld to transport the marijuana to St. Louis and deliver it to Adams. Adams, in turn, had taken every step expected of him, including his promise to make good on the balance owed to Crawford and Bortfeld, to complete the delivery sequence and to accept the marijuana into his own possession for the purpose of distributing it. The evidence leaves no doubt that had Crawford and Bortfeld been who he believed them to be rather than the undercover federal agents they were, Adams would have driven away from the truck stop with the marijuana. The fact that the van’s battery had been disconnected does not meaningfully distinguish the facts of this case from those we found sufficient to show (constructive) possession in Perry or those which other circuits have found sufficient to establish possession. The presence of federal agents in those cases rendered the defendant’s ability to leave the scene with the drugs just as improbable as it was here. Although in this case the van was inoperable, it was nonetheless in Adams’ custody, and from the moment he took the van’s keys into his hands he had the ability to exercise control over the van and its contents in many senses if not in the sense that he could have driven the van away. He could have locked the doors and at least temporarily kept others from entering the van; if he was armed he could have held the agents at bay; if he had rolling paper he could have fashioned himself a joint; if he had a lighter he could have set the van on fire. It was not necessary for the agents to have left the battery connected in order to establish Adams’ control over the van’s contents. In the eyes of his coconspirators, Adams had a right to take possession of the marijuana once Crawford and Bortfeld had been paid; and when Adams accepted the keys to the van, entered it, and attempted to engage the ignition, he amply signaled his willingness and intent to exercise that right. Allowing him a chance to drive away was not necessary to establish his possession of the marijuana.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

08-4205 U.S. v. Adams

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Herndon, J., Rovner, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests