United States v. De La Torre

599 F.3d 1198 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A hotel desk clerk called the Wichita Police Department and reported what she suspected was a false identification used to rent Room 256. The people staying in Room 150 were in the process of moving to Room 256. The clerk stated other guests had reported the smell of marijuana coming from Room 150. D testified he awoke that morning when someone in the room started screaming that the police were at the hotel. D claimed one of the people in the room handed him a backpack and instructed D to follow him. They left the hotel, at which point the other person told D to get rid of the backpack. Officer Rago saw D and another individual run from the hotel and hop over a short fence. Officer Rago testified D was carrying a backpack, which he threw into a culvert as he ran away. A few minutes later, D and a companion walked back to the hotel through the parking lot. Officer Rago recognized them and approached to ask them where they came from and where they were going. Each gave a different answer. Another Officer had retrieved the backpack which contained multiple bricks of marijuana, a large bag of methamphetamine, rubber bands, Ziploc bags, and digital scales. Officer Rago took both men into custody. D admitted knowing the backpack contained marijuana, scales, Ziploc bags, rubber bands, digital scales, and 'ice,' a form of methamphetamine. D also admitted being in Room 150 for about three days, where he hung out with friends and used marijuana and ecstasy. D told Officer Springob his friends sold narcotics in the room. He also admitted using methamphetamine in the past, but not at the hotel. D claimed he told Officer Springob he believed it only contained marijuana because he and others in the hotel room had only used marijuana. D claimed he did not know of the meth until after his arrest. The jury was instructed that P did not need to prove D knew the precise nature of the illegal drugs in his possession and that D could be convicted even if he was ignorant of the meth in the backpack. D was convicted and appealed.