United States v. Tory Lenard James, 601 F. App'x 789

Sarasota police obtained a warrant to search a white RV parked at 2420 N. Osprey Ave. after investigating suspected drug activity at that address.
Detective Charlie Riffe's affidavit relied on a confidential informant who made three controlled purchases on the property; field tests indicated the purchased substance was cocaine.
The informant reported that one seller retrieved narcotics from a white camper/recreational vehicle parked on the property; police surveillance observed short, frequent visits to the address consistent with street-level drug sales.
The state court issued a warrant covering the residence and the white RV; police searched the RV and found a firearm and ammunition.
James, who rented the RV and had the only keys, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he moved to suppress the firearm and ammo, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause to link the RV to criminal activity.
The district court denied suppression; James was convicted and appealed the denial of the suppression motion and the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search the RV	Affidavit was conclusory and lacked sufficient facts tying contraband to the RV	Affidavit, taken as a whole, provided a fair probability that drugs would be in the RV based on CI purchases and surveillance	Court held affidavit provided sufficient probable cause; denial of suppression affirmed
Whether surveillance description was impermissibly conclusory	Riffe’s statement that visits were "consistent with street drug sales" was mere conclusion	That observation, combined with CI corroboration, supports probable cause under the totality of circumstances	Court found the combined facts sufficient; conclusory language did not defeat probable cause
Whether description of the vehicle was too vague	Calling it a "camper/small recreational vehicle" was ambiguous and insufficiently particular	Affidavit described color, trim, door/windows; only one RV was on property and police searched correct vehicle	Court held description sufficiently particular to identify the RV to be searched
Whether affidavit needed information about RV contents or CI entry into RV	Affidavit failed to state that CI entered RV or identified occupants or contents	Fourth Amendment does not require prior entry to describe likely location of evidence; CI report plus surveillance sufficed	Court held no requirement to have entered RV or detail contents; probable cause satisfied

United States v. Jimenez, 224 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for suppression denials: factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo)
United States v. Gibson, 708 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2013) (probable cause requires fair probability contraband will be found at a location)
United States v. Brundidge, 170 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1999) (probable cause assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (established the totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant-based probable cause)
United States v. Sweeting, 933 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1991) (officer observations corroborated by informant tips can support probable cause for a warrant)
United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1985) (warrant need only describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity)