199 F.3d 1180 | 10th Cir. | 1999
Lead Opinion
A federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to agents of the Sedgwick County, Kansas, Sheriffs Department to search the residence of Defendant Marcus Nolan and seize documents, electronic equipment, and assets relating to drug trafficking. The warrant did not authorize the seizure of drugs or drug paraphernalia. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the sworn affidavit of Sergeant Michael Crawford. The affidavit provided in relevant part—
• A confidential informant purchased crack cocaine from Defendant Nolan on ten different occasions at various public locations between April 14, 1997 and March 12,1998.
• The confidential informant purchased a total of 140 grams of crack cocaine from Defendant Nolan during the course of the investigation.
• Although he had never been inside Defendant Nolan’s residence, the confidential informant believed Nolan maintained a quantity of crack cocaine at his residence because Nolan was careful not to sell crack cocaine from his residence.
• Defendant Nolan resided at 2648 Manhattan, Wichita, Kansas.
• Based upon his training and experience, Sergeant Crawford opined that drug traffickers sometimes maintain records and quantities of narcotics in easily accessible locations.
While executing the warrant, agents observed cocaine in the residence and obtained a second warrant for the seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia. (The record is silent as to how the officers obtained this second warrant.) Pursuant to the warrants, agents seized various drug contraband and other evidence of drug trafficking. They arrested both Defendant Nolan and his roommate, Defendant Elizabeth Cunningham. A grand jury subsequently indicted Nolan and Cunningham on charges of distributing cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
After a hearing, the district court suppressed the evidence which agents seized during the search. The court held that the warrant authorizing the search of Defendant Nolan’s residence was not supported by probable cause because the underlying affidavit failed to establish a sufficient nexus between his residence and the items to be seized. The court also held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the affidavit lacked any indicia of probable cause. The government appeals. We exercise jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, and reverse.
I.
We review de novo the district court’s probable cause determination. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). Our review of the magistrate judge’s issuance of a search warrant, however, is more deferential: Our duty is to ensure that the magistrate judge had a “substantial basis” for concluding that the affidavit in support of the warrant established probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). “The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317.
Because of the “strong preference” for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant, the Supreme Court has instructed us to pay “great deference” to a magistrate judge’s determination of probable cause. Id. at 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317. “Only the probability, and not a prima facie showing,
At the time the magistrate judge issued the search warrant in this case, at least three of our sister circuits had held in cases involving drug traffickers that “observations of illegal activity outside of the home can provide probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for a suspect’s house, even in the absence of an allegation that any illegal activity occurred in the home itself.” United States v. Thomas, 989 F.2d 1252, 1254 (D.C.Cir.1993) (per curiam).
The law in our circuit has taken a somewhat different path than the law of our sister circuits. To be sure, like the law of our sister circuits, probable cause requires a nexus between the place to be searched and the items to be seized. United States v. Hargus, 128 F.3d 1358, 1362 (10th Cir.1997). To establish the required nexus, the affidavit supporting the search warrant need not contain direct evidence or personal knowledge that the items sought are located at the place to be searched. Id. Rather, the issuing magistrate judge “may draw reasonable inferences from the material provided in the warrant application.” United States v. Rowland, 145 F.3d 1194, 1205 (10th Cir.1998). Yet, unlike our sister circuits, we have never held that the mere observation of repetitive illegal drug activity outside a suspect’s residence by itself is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of the suspect’s residence.
In United States v. Reyes, 798 F.2d 380 (10th Cir.1986), we held an affidavit supported a magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause where the affiant stated that defendant was a member of a drug trafficking conspiracy and that members of
Given the state of the law in our circuit and the differences of opinion it elicits, this panel chooses not to decide in this instance whether the affidavit in support of the search warrant was sufficient to sustain the magistrate judge’s finding that incriminating evidence would likely be found inside Defendant Nolan’s residence. Instead, we exercise our discretion to decide this case under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), and leave for another day the probable cause inquiry. See id. at 924-25, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (courts have considerable discretion in conforming their decisionmaking process to the exigencies of a particular case); Rowland, 145 F.3d at 1206 n. 8 (reviewing court may, in appropriate case, address the good-faith issue without first considering validity of the warrant).
II.
In Leon the Court concluded that “the suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered ... only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 918, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (emphasis added). The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. Id. at 916, 104 S.Ct. 3405. Where an officer acting with objective good faith obtains a search warrant from a detached and neutral magistrate and the executing officers act within its scope, there is nothing to deter. Id. at 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405. Thus, the evidence seized pursuant to such a warrant should not be excluded from trial. This is so because—
[i]n the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate’s probable-cause determination.... Once the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law. Penalizing the officer for the magistrate’s error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.
Id. at 921, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (internal brackets, quotations, and citations omitted).
In this case, the district court held that the exclusionary rule’s good-faith exception did not apply because the affidavit in support of the warrant to search Defendant Nolan’s residence was “precisely the sort of bare bones, conclusory document which the Fourth Amendment will not permit.” The applicability of the good-faith exception is a question of law that we review de novo. Rowland, 145 F.3d at 1206. Applying this standard, we disagree with the district court’s holding.
A reasonable officer not versed in the intricacies of the law could not properly be charged with knowledge that the search of Defendant Nolan’s residence might be unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 919, 104 S.Ct. 3405. Law enforcement officials’ reliance in this case on the magistrate judge’s determination of probable cause was not objectively unreasonable. “Penalizing the officers for a [possible] mistake not their own ‘cannot logically contribute to deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.’ ” Rowland, 145 F.3d at 1208 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 921, 104 S.Ct. 3405).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
. At issue below and in this court is the validity of the first warrant, not the validity of the second warrant authorizing the seizure of the drugs. The government's appeal of the suppression of evidence pursuant to the district court’s order addresses only the adequacy of the first warrant, ignoring, as did the district court, the adequacy of the second. Defendants similarly choose not to discuss the second warrant. Apparently all parties concede that the validity of the second warrant depends on the validity of the first.
. Then judge, now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was a member of the unanimous panel in Thomas.
. Recently, the First and Seventh Circuits joined that group and upheld the issuance of warrants in cases similar to this one. United States v. Feliz, 182 F.3d 82, 88 (1st Cir.1999), petition for cert. filed, Sept. 23, 1999 (99—6383) (nexus between criminal evidence and premises to be searched need not be based on direct evidence, but rather may be inferred from the type of crime and nature of the evidence sought); United States v. McClellan, 165 F.3d 535, 546 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1781, 143 L.Ed.2d 809 (1999) (evidence that defendant was a drug dealer sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of his residence). The Sixth Circuit has issued conflicting decisions. Compare United States v. Schultz, 14 F.3d 1093, 1097-98 (6th Cir.1994) (evidence that defendant was a drug dealer and owned a certain security deposit box, together with officer’s opinion that drug traffickers keep incriminating evidence in security deposit boxes, was insufficient to establish probable cause), with United States v. Davidson, 936 F.2d 856, 859-60 (6th Cir.1991) (issuing magistrate reasonably inferred from evidence of drug trafficking that contraband would be found at defendant's residence).
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
In my opinion, the affidavit in this case was the sort of bare bones, conelusory document which the Fourth Amendment will not permit. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). There is nothing in the affidavit that sets forth any facts connecting drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records to the defendant’s home. Indeed, the only reference in the affidavit to the defendant’s home tends to negate any nexus between the defendant’s home and drug activity. The affidavit explicitly states that the defendant “is careful not to sell drugs to anyone from his residence.” (emphasis added.) The affiant further goes on to state affirmatively that he has “not been inside [defendant’s] residence.”
Thus, even utilizing the generous standard set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), I believe that this search was constitutionally defective. I would, accordingly, affirm the district court’s suppression of the evidence obtained as a result of the search.
