Can A Stash House Have More Than One "Principal Purpose?"

When is a house a "stash house?" It truth, it can be both, as the Sixth Circuit held in United States v. Tripplet.

Tripplet lived with his girlfriend and her two young children in an apartment she rented. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant for the apartment after undercover agents conducted four controlled buys involving an intermediary who traveled to meet Tripplet there. The search uncovered significant quantities of methamphetamine, fentanyl, cocaine, and crack cocaine. In addition, agents discovered additional evidence of drug trafficking, along with a handgun and ammunition. A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Tripplet for one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to the first count pursuant to a written plea agreement with the Government. Overruling his objection to the application of the two-level "drug premises" enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), the district court sentenced Tripplet to 188 months imprisonment, varying downward to the bottom of the Guidelines range that would have applied had it not applied the enhancement.

Tripplet's appeal focused on the district court's application of the "drug premises" enhancement. Specifically, he argued that since he lived at the residence with his girlfriend and her two children, the Government did not prove that drug trafficking was the residence's "primary purpose." Citing the commentary to the Guidelines, the Court held that a residence could have multiple principal purposes, and that it could qualify for the "premises enhancement" so long as one of those "principal purposes" was the manufacturing or distribution of controlled substances. Noting the significant quantities of controlled substances, drug distribution equipment (i.e. two blenders with drug residue), cash, and a firearm recovered from Tripplet's apartment, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. It also held the district court reasonably inferred from this evidence that the drug activity at the apartment was more than "incidental."

The Court's decision did not foreclose challenges to the "drug premises" enhancement, although it held that a premises could have multiple primary purposes, both legal and illegal. Defendants challenging such an enhancement should focus on evidence suggesting that drug activity at the residence was "incidental."