Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence; Inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement; Good faith reliance on a search warrant; Probable cause; Mid-trial amendment of the indictment as to one count; Claim preservation; Actual amendment; Applicability of the “matter of form” exception; Co-conspirator statements hearsay exception (FRE 801(d)(2)(E)); Furthered the conspiracy prong; Sufficiency of the evidence for a conspiracy to distribute & possess with intent to distribute drugs conviction; Participation element; Great weight of the evidence

The court upheld the district court’s denial of defendant-Johnson’s three motions to suppress, and found that a challenged hearsay statement was properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception. It also held that there was sufficient evidence to support his conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute drugs conviction. But it vacated his conviction on one count (Count Two) because that count was actually amended mid-trial to refer to cocaine instead of cocaine base. His first motion to suppress concerned a car search. Considering the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement, the court concluded that the officers’ testimony “showed that their impoundment decision and subsequent inventory search comported with” department policy and the Fourth Amendment. His second motion concerned evidence found at his home during execution of a search warrant. The court determined “that an officer could in good faith rely on the affidavit here” and thus, the officers who conducted the search “relied in good faith on the warrant.” Finally, as to the motion to suppress evidence found in a search of his grandmother’s home pursuant to a warrant, the court concluded that the warrant affidavit established probable cause. Johnson’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge concerned conspiracy’s participation element. The court found “that a rational trier of fact could conclude that Johnson participated in the” conspiracy. The “government showed the jury that Johnson received drug packs from” a co-conspirator approximately 50 “times over the years. That’s a continuing supply from a constant source within the conspiracy.” But as to one of his convictions for individually possessing with intent to distribute (Count Two), the court found that he “did enough to object to the amendment” and that this conviction had to be vacated because “the indictment was actually amended and an actual amendment is a per se violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Presentment Clause.” Affirmed except as to Count Two, which the court reversed, and remanded.