## Facts

- Federal agents intercepted wiretapped calls between a cocaine supplier and a co-conspirator indicating a buyer would arrive at a specific house in 15 minutes to pick up ordered drugs.
- Officers surveilled the house, observed a man enter at the predicted time, exit shortly thereafter, flee when approached, and get caught with cocaine he had just purchased; the man was Abraham Colon.
- The seized cocaine supported a charge of possession with intent to distribute.
- At trial, the government also presented evidence that Colon repeatedly purchased distribution quantities of cocaine from the supplier group over roughly six weeks and that the dealings were standardized and reflected mutual trust.
- A jury in federal district court convicted Colon of (1) possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, (2) conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, and (3) aiding and abetting a conspiracy, and the court sentenced him to 135 months’ imprisonment.
- Colon appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the stop and the sufficiency of the evidence for the conspiracy-based convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether officers had constitutionally sufficient grounds to stop Colon based on surveillance corroborating wiretapped information about a scheduled drug pickup.
2. Whether evidence of repeated purchases of distribution quantities on standardized, trusting terms was sufficient to prove Colon joined, or aided and abetted, the supplier’s drug conspiracy rather than remaining a buyer in a buyer–seller relationship.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
- The court held the stop and ensuing seizure were supported by more than generalized suspicion associated with a “drug house,” because the wiretap predicted a buyer’s imminent arrival and surveillance closely matched that prediction.
- The court reversed the convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting a conspiracy for insufficient evidence.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the narrowed set of convictions, including resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Entering or leaving a location associated with drug sales, without more, does not establish probable cause to stop every visitor; individualized, case-specific facts are required.
- Wiretap information predicting a drug pickup, corroborated by surveillance showing a person arriving at the predicted time and place under circumstances indicating the predicted transaction, can provide constitutionally adequate grounds for a stop and seizure.
- The buyer–seller rule limits conspiracy liability: an agreement to buy drugs, even repeatedly and in large quantities, does not by itself establish that the buyer agreed to join the seller’s broader distribution conspiracy.
- Evidence supporting conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to participate in a shared unlawful objective beyond the immediate sales transaction; regularity, standardized dealing, and “mutual trust” associated with ongoing commerce may be insufficient without additional cooperative conduct tied to advancing the conspiracy.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the drug seizure and the possession-with-intent conviction because the stop was supported by wiretap-based, time-and-place-specific corroboration, but it reversed the conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting convictions because repeated distribution-quantity purchases, standing alone, did not prove Colon agreed to participate in the supplier’s conspiracy.


United States v. Colon, 549 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2008)