Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02416/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02416-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Jose Stevens
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2416

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Juan Jose Stevens, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 12, 2008

Filed: June 24, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Juan Jose Stevens entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of conspiracy

to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 860, and one count of conspiracy to

commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)(i).

Stevens’s plea reserved his right to appeal the district court’s1

 denial of his motion to

suppress. He appeals, arguing that the warrant to search his residence lacked probable

Appellate Case: 07-2416 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2008 Entry ID: 3445862
-2-

cause and violated the standard set forth in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

We affirm.

I. Background

The affidavit used to obtain the search warrant on Stevens’s residence contained

the following information. On October 8, 2006, Stevens’s adult daughter reported to

police that she had seen Stevens sell a bag of cocaine to an unknown man in front of

their residence the day before. Stevens and his daughter lived in separate apartments

in the same building. Stevens’s daughter identified herself and gave an in-person

statement to the affiant officer that Stevens admitted to her that he sold cocaine to the

man and that Stevens had then shown her a safe inside his apartment that contained

fifty to one hundred bags of cocaine. The daughter’s half-brother, who was unrelated

to Stevens, also identified himself and gave an in-person statement to the affiant

officer, reporting that he had overheard Stevens admit to selling the cocaine but that

he had not seen the transaction. After taking the informants’ statements, the affiant

officer conducted a criminal history check on Stevens and stated in the affidavit that

STEVENS CRIMAL [sic] HISTORY SHOWED A VERY LENGTHY

ARREST RECORD THAT INCLUDED SEVEN NARCOTIC

RELATED ARRESTS, FIVE ASSAULTS, FOUR OWI’S, THREE

IWOA ARRESTS, TWO PROBATION VIOLATIONS, TWO

BURGLARIES, ONE ROBERRY [sic] AND POSSESSION OF A

SHOTGUN AS A FELON. HE HAS ALSO SERVED PRISON TIME

IN BOTH TEXAS AND IOWA FOR THESE OFFENSES.

The affiant officer also checked motor vehicle records and confirmed that two vehicles

were registered to Stevens at the address his daughter had given. He did not explicitly

indicate in the affidavit why he thought the informants’ statements were reliable, but

he attached the daughter’s signed statement for submission with the affidavit.

Appellate Case: 07-2416 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2008 Entry ID: 3445862
2

 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, then Chief Magistrate Judge for the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, now United States District

Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

-3-

The search of Stevens’s residence pursuant to the resulting warrant yielded

more than four thousand grams of cocaine, most of which was located in a safe,

$13,469.00 in cash, and three vehicles that Stevens admitted were the proceeds of

drug trafficking and money laundering.

In its response to Stevens’s motion to suppress, the government acknowledged

that the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant contained inaccurate information

regarding Stevens’s criminal history. These inaccuracies consisted of an

overstatement of the number of Stevens’s arrests for narcotics-related offenses,

assaults, and OWIs. The affidavit also incorrectly stated that Stevens had possessed

a shotgun as a felon and that he had served prison time both in Texas and in Iowa

when in fact he had not served time in Iowa. The magistrate judge2

 to whom the case

was referred held a Franks hearing and concluded that the inaccurate information was

negligently included in the warrant affidavit and that the warrant was supported by

probable cause independently of the inaccurate information.

II. Analysis

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

that Stevens’s motion to suppress be denied. We review the district court’s factual

findings in support of its denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal

determination of probable cause de novo. United States v. McAtee, 481 F.3d 1099,

1102 (8th Cir. 2007).

Stevens argues that because it lacked explicit information regarding the

reliability of the informants and because it included false information about his

Appellate Case: 07-2416 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/24/2008 Entry ID: 3445862
-4-

criminal history, the affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the issuance of the

warrant, with the result that the evidence seized pursuant thereto must be suppressed.

A search warrant is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is supported by

probable cause. United States v. Gabrio, 295 F.3d 880, 882 (8th Cir. 2002). Probable

cause exists when a “practical, common-sense” inquiry that considers the totality of

the circumstances set forth in the information before the issuing judge yields a “fair

probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983); see McAtee, 481 F.3d at 1102. Although

“an informant’s veracity, reliability and basis of knowledge are all highly relevant”

in determining whether probable cause exists when an affidavit is based on hearsay

information, they are not “entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly

exacted in every case.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 230 (internal quotations omitted); see

McAtee, 481 F.3d at 1102. An issuing judge’s “determination of probable cause

should be paid great deference by reviewing courts” and should be upheld if the judge

had a “substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing] that a search would uncover evidence of

wrongdoing.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 (alteration in original) (internal quotations

omitted).

A search warrant is void and the resulting evidence must be suppressed,

however, if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the affiant

knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false

statement in the warrant affidavit and the affidavit does not establish probable cause

without the false statement. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56; see also United States v.

Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984). An affiant knowingly and intentionally or recklessly

includes a false statement if he “in fact entertain[s] serious doubts as to the truth of the

affidavit or ha[s] obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of the information contained

therein.” United States v. Clapp, 46 F.3d 795, 801 (8th Cir. 1995) (adopting the First

Amendment libel standard for Franks inquiries). Inaccurate statements that result

Appellate Case: 07-2416 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/24/2008 Entry ID: 3445862
-5-

from negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient to trigger relief under Franks.

438 U.S. at 171.

We conclude that probable cause existed to issue the warrant to search

Stevens’s residence and that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the

affiant officer did not knowingly or recklessly include a false statement in the

affidavit. Furthermore, we conclude that the affidavit establishes probable cause

without the erroneous information about Stevens’s criminal history.

The hearsay information included in the affidavit provided sufficient indicia of

reliability to support a finding of probable cause. Stevens’s daughter and her halfbrother identified themselves and voluntarily provided in-person statements to the

affiant officer. See United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824, 827-28 (8th Cir. 2005)

(citing Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270 (2000) (“a known informant . . . can be held

responsible if her allegations turn out to be fabricated”) and Gabrio, 295 F.3d at 883

(in-person statements allow affiant to assess informant’s veracity)); see also McAtee,

481 F.3d at 1103 (known informant more reliable than anonymous or confidential

informant); United States v. Robertson, 39 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 1994) (in-person

statements allow affiant to assess informant’s veracity). The daughter’s statement

details a first-person, eyewitness account of recent criminal activity and contraband

at Stevens’s home. See McAtee, 481 F.3d at 1103; Solomon, 432 F.3d at 827; Gabrio,

295 F.3d at 883; Robertson, 39 F.3d at 893 (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 234 (“[E]ven

if we entertain some doubt as to an informant’s motives, his explicit and detailed

description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed

firsthand, entitles his tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case.”)). The

issuing judge could conclude that the daughter had a strong basis of knowledge that

cocaine would be found in Stevens’s home because he had shown her that it was there.

See Solomon, 432 F.3d at 827 (citing United States v. Jackson, 898 F.2d 79, 80 (8th

Cir. 1990) (first-person account indicates a strong basis of knowledge)).

Appellate Case: 07-2416 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/24/2008 Entry ID: 3445862
-6-

In addition to the above-described indicia of the informants’ veracity,

reliability, and strong basis of knowledge, the information they provided was

sufficiently corroborated to support a finding of probable cause. The corroboration

of even innocent, minor details can support a finding of probable cause. Solomon,

432 F.3d at 828 (discussing United States v. Murphy, 69 F.3d 237, 240 (8th Cir. 1995)

(affiant confirmed facts of suspect’s address and parole release)); United States v.

Ketzeback, 358 F.3d 987, 991-92 (8th Cir. 2004) (corroboration of publicly available

information established informant’s familiarity with suspect and knowledge of

activities); Robertson, 39 F.3d at 894 (utility account of the residence described by

informant was in suspect’s name). The affiant officer confirmed that two vehicles

were registered to Stevens at the residence identified by his daughter. The affiant

officer also checked Stevens’s criminal history and discovered that the criminal

activity and contraband alleged by Stevens’s daughter were similar to the narcoticsrelated charges for which Stevens had been arrested several times. See Ketzeback,

358 F.3d at 992; see also Solomon, 432 F.3d at 828 n.2 (citing Gabrio, 295 F.3d at

883).

With respect to the Franks challenge, we agree with the district court’s

conclusion that the affiant officer was at most negligent in including the inaccurate

information regarding Stevens’s criminal history in the affidavit. The affiant officer

testified at the Franks hearing about the process he followed in preparing the affidavit,

enabling the magistrate judge to assess his credibility. See United States v. Young

Buffalo, 591 F.2d 506, 511 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge found that the

affiant officer had “hastily gathered” the information from multiple sources late at

night. See id. (the synthesis of information from multiple sources may account for

errors). We note that the information on Stevens’s criminal history came from two

states and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and that its complexity understandably

resulted in the inaccuracies described above. Notwithstanding those inaccuracies, the

affidavit accurately related that Stevens had a lengthy criminal history that included

Appellate Case: 07-2416 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/24/2008 Entry ID: 3445862
-7-

several narcotics-related arrests. Accordingly, even when shorn of the inaccurate

information, the affidavit established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2416 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/24/2008 Entry ID: 3445862