United States v. Tebeau, No. 12-3485 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant owned more than 300 acres of land where he has held weekend music festivals at which drug use was widespread. Defendant invited various bands to perform at the festivals and he also performed with his own Grateful Dead tribute band. After law enforcement conducted an undercover investigation into the illegal drug sales at the festivals, defendant was indicted on one count of managing a drug involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(2). Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. The court concluded that section 856(a)(2) did not require proof that defendant had the illegal purpose to use, manufacture, sell, or distribute controlled substances; it was sufficient that defendant intended to make his property available to others who had that purpose; section 856(a)(2) did not violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause or defendant's First Amendment rights; and the indictment satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c) by adequately stating the offense with which defendant was being charged. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. District court did not err in determining that defendant, the owner of property he used for music festivals, may be indicted under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 856(a)(2) for making a property available for drug distribution without any further illegal purpose ; the statute does not require proof that defendant had the illegal purpose to use, manufacture, sell or distribute a controlled substance, as it is sufficient that he intended to make his property available to others who had that purpose; this interpretation of the statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause or defendant's First Amendment rights; indictment satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c). [ April 29, 2013
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.