The federal sentencing guidelines impose a two-level increase when a defendant maintained a premises for manufacturing or distributing controlled substances. This provision, commonly called the stash house sentencing enhancement, can substantially increase the recommended prison sentence.
The enhancement does not automatically apply merely because drugs were found inside a home, apartment, garage, or storage unit. The government must prove that the defendant maintained the premises and that drug manufacturing or distribution was one of its primary uses. If prosecutors are seeking this enhancement, contact federal criminal defense attorney Michael J. Petro to challenge the government’s evidence before sentencing.
What Is the Stash House Sentencing Enhancement?
USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12) provides a two-level increase if the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.
A premises may include:
- A house or apartment
- A single room
- A garage
- A commercial property
- A warehouse
- A storage unit
- Another building or enclosed area
The fact that a location qualifies as a premises does not end the inquiry. The government must also establish that the defendant maintained it and used it primarily or principally for drug activity.
When Does a Defendant Maintain a Drug Premises?
Courts examine the entire factual record. Important considerations include:
- Whether the defendant owned or rented the property
- Whether the defendant paid expenses associated with it
- Whether the defendant possessed a key
- Whether the defendant controlled access to the location
- Whether the defendant controlled activities occurring there
- How frequently the location was used for drug activity
- How long the alleged drug activity continued
- Whether drugs, proceeds, scales, packaging materials, firearms, or records were stored there
- Whether drug transactions occurred at the location
- Whether the defendant received payment for making the premises available
Ownership is relevant but not required. A defendant may maintain a premises liability claim without holding the lease or title if the evidence shows meaningful control over the premises and its activities.
Drug Activity Must Be a Primary Use
Drug distribution does not have to be the only use of the property. A residence may be used both as a home and as a place for drug distribution. However, manufacturing or distributing drugs must be a primary or principal use, not an incidental or collateral use.
This distinction is critical. The occasional presence of drugs, isolated transactions, or temporary storage may not establish that drug activity was a primary use of the property. The defense should examine the frequency, duration, purpose, and circumstances of the alleged activity rather than allowing prosecutors to rely solely on the discovery of contraband.
United States v. Sanchez
Attorney Michael J. Petro represented Acasio Sanchez in the district court and on appeal in United States v. Sanchez, No. 15-1356. The appeal challenged the application of the stash house sentencing enhancement to a residence used for storing drugs.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed the enhancement. The court emphasized that Sanchez received large drug deliveries at the residence over approximately one year, controlled access to the drugs, made them available for pickup, and received $1,500 per month for providing the storage location.
The decision illustrates why these cases depend heavily on their specific facts. The court did not hold that the presence of drugs in a residence automatically establishes the enhancement. Instead, it relied on the duration and regularity of the storage arrangement, the defendant’s control, the amount of drugs involved, and the compensation he received.
Read the official Seventh Circuit opinion in United States v. Sanchez.
The Seventh Circuit Requires More Than Suspicion
In United States v. Montgomery, the Seventh Circuit vacated a sentence involving a storage unit because the record did not establish that drug distribution was a primary use of the unit. Although drugs, cash, and distribution equipment were found there, the government connected the defendant to only three drug transactions involving the unit during approximately one month.
The court explained that the government needed to prove more than three transactions tied to the storage unit to satisfy its burden on the record presented. The decision confirms that courts must evaluate actual evidence concerning control, duration, frequency, and purpose.
How the Defense Can Challenge the Enhancement
A strong objection may argue that:
- The defendant lacked a possessory interest in the property
- Other people controlled access to the location
- The defendant’s use was temporary or sporadic
- Drug activity occurred only occasionally
- The premises primarily served a legitimate residential or commercial purpose
- The drugs belonged to another occupant
- There is insufficient evidence connecting the defendant to items found there
- The government cannot prove that distribution was a primary use
- The sentencing court’s findings are incomplete or unsupported
The government bears the burden of establishing the enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. Defense counsel should object to unsupported statements in the presentence report, demand reliable evidence, and request explicit factual findings from the sentencing court.
Federal Sentencing Representation in Tampa and Chicago
A two-level increase can add years to a federal sentence depending on the defendant’s offense level and criminal history. Challenges to the stash house sentencing enhancement should begin before the sentencing hearing through objections to the presentence report, supporting evidence, and focused sentencing advocacy.
If the government is seeking a stash house enhancement in a federal drug case, protect your sentencing position and contact federal criminal defense attorney Michael J. Petro.