ILNews

Circuit Court affirms judgments against 2 ex-IMPD narcotics officers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has found nothing wrong with the convictions or sentence of two former Indianapolis narcotics detectives brought down by their involvement in an illegal drug scheme to supplement their income as police officers.

Former Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers Robert Long and Jason Edwards were convicted during a jury trial in June 2009 and found guilty of drug possession and conspiracy to distribute, and they received 25 years and 17 years respectively. A third officer, James Davis, was also sentenced for his role in the scheme, which the FBI began investigating in early 2008.

U.S. Judge Larry McKinney presided over the trial, which was one of his final official actions on the bench before he took senior status that year. On appeal, Edwards attacked his conviction and claimed the District Court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss evidence related to a phone wiretap while Long raised multiple complaints about his sentence.

In a 15-page decision issued today in the combined case of United States of America v. Robert B. Long and Jason P. Edwards, Nos. 09-3493 and 09-3636, the 7th Circuit found those contentions were without merit and affirmed the District Court.

On the wiretap issue relating to Edwards’ conviction, the 7th Circuit determined the affidavit was more than adequate to establish necessity under the court’s deferential standard of review. It laid out in detail the efforts used to investigate both Long and Edwards at that point, and the government’s fear that the techniques already used had missed some co-conspirators. Even if the investigation had uncovered enough evidence to arrest Edwards prior to the wiretap application, that doesn’t preclude finding it necessary, the court wrote.

Noting that Long’s brief challenging his sentence is “less than clear,” the 7th Circuit also dismissed his claims that the District Court failed to follow proper procedure in calculating the guideline range for his sentence, didn’t enter necessary findings of fact to support the drug quantity enhancement, misapplied a firearm possession enhancement, and neglected to reduce Long’s sentence to account for the government’s alleged misconduct during the investigation.

Even if Judge McKinney did what Long claimed on any of the points, the appellate panel noted that Long still didn’t show plain error or that any errors impacted his sentence. On the sentencing manipulation point, Long urged the 7th Circuit not to apply precedent from U.S. v. Garcia, 79 F. 3d 74, 76 (7th Cir. 1996), because of a factual distinction and how other Circuits allow for the defense of sentencing manipulation to be used. But the 7th Circuit rejected that argument because of the larger amount of drugs in this case that was used to draw out additional co-conspirators.

This ends the litigation, unless one or both parties decide to request a rehearing or ask the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the issues.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  2. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

  3. That comment on this e-site, which reports on every building, courtroom or even insignificant social movement by beltway sycophants as being named to honor the yet-quite-alive former chief judge, is truly laughable!

  4. Is this a social parallel to the Mosby prosecutions in Baltimore? Progressive ideology ever seeks Pilgrims to burn at the stake. (I should know.)

  5. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

ADVERTISEMENT