## Facts

- Over roughly two years, William James Crippen participated in a methamphetamine-manufacturing scheme involving multiple individuals and locations.
- In late 2007, Guy Conroy and William Stibbs began manufacturing methamphetamine at Conroy’s residence; Crippen repeatedly supplied pseudoephedrine pills in exchange for finished methamphetamine.
- In October 2008, officers executed a search warrant at Conroy’s residence, found meth-manufacturing ingredients and equipment, and discovered Crippen at the scene; Crippen was arrested for meth possession and denied involvement.
- After the October 2008 search, Crippen and Troy Daniels began manufacturing methamphetamine; Conroy later joined when they used his residence.
- The participants obtained ingredients by purchasing or recruiting others to buy pseudoephedrine, stealing anhydrous ammonia from farm/co-op tanks, and obtaining lithium batteries and other components.
- In January 2009, Crippen was the front-seat passenger in a truck driven by Daniels; an officer observed Crippen not wearing a seatbelt, then observed Daniels dump tires into a private apartment dumpster, confirmed no permission to dump, and stopped the truck.
- The stop led to discovery of drug-related evidence, including residue and items supporting meth-manufacturing activity.
- While jailed on drug charges, Crippen made recorded calls with his mother discussing ways to prevent a coconspirator (including Daniels) from testifying, including threats of violence against the witness and the witness’s family.
- A jury convicted Crippen of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)) and conspiracy to tamper with a witness (18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A)); the district court imposed a 180-month sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the traffic stop and ensuing investigation violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of the evidence obtained.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying motions in limine and admitting challenged evidence, including recorded jail calls and related contextual evidence.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Crippen knowingly and intentionally joined a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove a conspiracy to tamper with a witness by threats or corrupt persuasion to prevent testimony under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A).
5. Whether the district court erred in calculating the advisory Guidelines range or imposed an unreasonable 180-month sentence.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment in all respects.
- The motion to suppress was properly denied because the officer had a lawful basis for the stop and reasonable grounds for further investigation based on observed violations and suspicious conduct.
- The evidentiary rulings were affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence.
- The methamphetamine-conspiracy conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of agreement and Crippen’s knowing participation, including procurement of key precursors, participation in “cooking,” and corroborating physical evidence.
- The witness-tampering-conspiracy conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, including recorded jail calls reflecting an agreement with Crippen’s mother to prevent testimony through threats and related steps in furtherance.
- The 180-month sentence was affirmed because the record supported the Guidelines determinations and the sentence was not shown to be unreasonable.

## Legal Principles

- A traffic stop is permissible when an officer observes a traffic violation; additional suspicious observations during the encounter may justify further investigation if supported by reasonable suspicion.
- On sufficiency review, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the conviction stands if a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A drug-manufacturing conspiracy may be proven through circumstantial evidence showing an agreement and knowing participation, including repeated procurement of precursors, participation in manufacturing, and corroborating physical evidence.
- A conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A) may be supported by recorded communications evidencing an agreement to prevent testimony through threats or corrupt persuasion and actions taken to further that objective.
- Evidentiary rulings on admissibility and Rule 403 balancing are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are upheld absent a clear showing of prejudicial error.
- Sentencing determinations generally receive clear-error review for factual findings and de novo review for Guidelines interpretation; a sentence supported by the record and properly calculated Guidelines is typically affirmed absent procedural or substantive error.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld Crippen’s convictions and 180-month sentence, concluding that the traffic stop and resulting evidence were constitutionally obtained, the district court’s evidentiary rulings were within its discretion, and the trial record supported both the meth-manufacturing conspiracy and the witness-tampering conspiracy based largely on ingredient-procurement/manufacturing evidence and recorded jail calls.


United States v. Crippen, 627 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2010)