United States v. Rufus Brown, Rodney Franklin, Ama Baltimore, Rufus Brown, in 92-3491, Ama Baltimore, in 92-3562

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “[p]ossession of the key to [a] crack house” would provide evidence “that the defendant was involved with the drugs found therein”
• concluding that while the evidence may be sufficient to show that Baltimore was residing at the home and knew that the drugs were in the house, the evidence did not support a finding that she exercised dominion Or control over the drugs
• “Requiring a modicum of evidence to support a decision to revoke good time credits will help to prevent arbitrary deprivations without threatening institutional interests or imposing undue administrative burdens.”
• finding “mere proximity” insufficient because Baltimore merely resided in the drug “cut house”
• distinguishing Davis partially because there was no evidence of destroying the drugs
• “[S]imple ownership or control of a vehicle is not enough on its own to establish constructive possession of [items] found therein, but rather, additional evidence must link the defendant to the [items].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).