Affirmation of Abel’s Bad-Faith Standard for Administrative Warrants and Guidelines §5K2.21 Upward Departures

Introduction

United States v. Coles, Preddy & Jenkins-Armstrong consolidates appeals by three coconspirators (Kevin Coles, Nicholas Preddy, and Johnnie Jenkins-Armstrong) against their convictions and sentences for involvement in a drug-trafficking ring and a retaliatory triple homicide. At issue were Fourth Amendment challenges to administrative and electronic surveillance warrants, dismissal of §924(c) counts, hearsay and impeachment evidence used at trial, and sentencing enhancements—particularly the scope of a §5K2.21 upward departure. The Third Circuit affirmed every challenged aspect, clarifying the contours of “bad faith” under Abel v. United States (1960), the good-faith exception to warrant exclusion, the categorical approach to §924(c) predicates, and the proper use of uncharged conduct at sentencing under USSG §5K2.21.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of:

Suppression motions to exclude evidence obtained via a New York administrative parole‐warrant and Pennsylvania electronic‐surveillance warrants;
A motion to dismiss §924(c)/(j)/(o) counts for lacking a qualifying “crime of violence” predicate;
Evidentiary objections to impeachment of a cooperating witness and exclusion of a statement by the victim’s mother;
A motion for acquittal challenging the sufficiency of proof against Coles.

It also held:

Hobbs Act robbery remains categorically a “crime of violence” under §924(c)(3)(A).
An administrative warrant may be used by another jurisdiction’s officers without “bad faith” if they act in bona fide execution of the warrant.
USSG §5K2.21 authorizes upward departures based on reliable, uncharged conduct, even when proven by codefendant testimony.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Abel v. United States (1960): Established that administrative warrants improperly used for criminal evidence gathering require proof of “bad faith” by law enforcement.
United States v. Leon (1984): Created the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule when police rely on a neutral magistrate’s warrant.
Carpenter v. United States (2018): Held that cell-site location information is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, requiring probable cause.
United States v. Taylor (2022): Clarified that attempt-only Hobbs Act robbery convictions do not qualify as “crimes of violence,” but left intact completed robbery.
United States v. Stoney (3d Cir. 2023): Confirmed that completed Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a crime of violence under §924(c)’s elements clause.
United States v. Tyler (3d Cir. 2013): Defined “killing a federal witness” as a crime of violence under §924(c)’s elements clause.
United States Sentencing Guidelines §5K2.21: Permits upward departures based on conduct underlying dismissed or uncharged charges when not reflected in the guidelines range.

Legal Reasoning

1. Administrative Warrants & Abel’s Bad Faith Standard
The court held that to suppress evidence seized under an administrative warrant, a defendant must show officers used it in “entirely illegitimate” fashion. Here, Maryland officers genuinely sought to execute a New York parole warrant and had independent grounds to detain Coles in Hagerstown, so “bad faith” under Abel was absent. Pennsylvania officers’ investigative interest did not taint that bona fide execution.

2. Electronic Surveillance & Good-Faith Exception
Pennsylvania courts issued electronic‐surveillance orders under state law. Even if they contained defects, the exclusionary rule does not apply where no federal constitutional violation occurs. Further, the Federal Fourth Amendment challenge to cell site data failed under the Leon good-faith exception, and no Franks violation was shown.

3. §924(c) Predicate Crimes of Violence
Coles’ attempt to dismiss §924(c) counts by arguing Hobbs Act robbery was not a “crime of violence” failed: both Hobbs Act robbery and killing a federal witness constitute qualifying predicates under binding Third Circuit precedent.

4. Evidentiary Rulings
(a) Impeachment–The government properly impeached its own witness (Diaz) with prior inconsistent statements under Rule 607, provided a limiting instruction, and did not transform it into the introduction of hearsay. (b) Residual Exception–A statement by the victim’s mother lacked the “exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness” needed for admission under Fed. R. Evid. 807.

5. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The evidence—witness testimony, cell-phone records, intercepted messages, and post-arrest admissions—amply supported convictions for murder‐for‐hire, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. Sentencing & §5K2.21 Upward Departure
In Preddy’s case, the district court imposed a 360-month sentence by departing upward under USSG §5K2.21 to reflect his role in the uncharged triple homicide. The court found two coconspirators’ trial testimony sufficiently reliable, credited it under a preponderance standard, and reasoned that the guidelines range did not capture the actual seriousness of Preddy’s conduct. That decision was a proper exercise of discretion.

Impact

Reinforces that law‐enforcement agencies may cooperatively execute administrative warrants without running afoul of Abel so long as the executing officers act in good faith and pursuit of legitimate administrative ends.
Confirms the scope of the good-faith exception and Franks challenges for electronic surveillance warrants.
Affirms Hobbs Act robbery’s status as a crime of violence, curtailing attempts to avoid §924(c) liability.
Authorizes legitimate upward departures under §5K2.21 based on reliable proof of uncharged or dismissed conduct, even when shown by codefendant testimony.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abel Bad-Faith Standard: An administrative warrant can only be invalidated if officers intentionally use it to gather criminal evidence without legitimate administrative purpose.
Good-Faith Exception: Evidence obtained under a facially valid warrant is not excluded simply because the warrant later proves defective, as long as officers relied on it in good faith.
Categorical Approach: To qualify as a “crime of violence,” a statute’s minimum elements must necessarily include “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”
Upward Departure (§5K2.21): Sentencing courts may exceed the Guidelines range to account for serious but uncharged or dismissed conduct if it is proven reliably and is unreflected in the calculated range.

Conclusion

In affirming convictions and sentences, the Third Circuit reinforced key doctrines governing administrative warrants, electronic surveillance, predicate offenses under §924(c), and sentencing departures for uncharged conduct. United States v. Coles, Preddy & Jenkins-Armstrong thus provides a comprehensive roadmap on the limits of suppression under Abel, the scope of the good-faith exception, and the proper application of USSG §5K2.21—sharpening the balance between robust criminal enforcement and constitutional safeguards.