Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10910/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10910-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Moody
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10910

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PATRICK MOODY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-365-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Moody was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to 

distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 

serve 72 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. In this 

appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. 

Consistent with his arguments in the district court, he insists that the 

driveway where an officer was standing when he smelled marijuana was part 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10910 Document: 00513682678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2016
No. 15-10910

2

of the curtilage and that the officer was thus trespassing when he was there. 

Thus, he argues, the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based was 

grounded in a falsehood vis-à-vis the officer’s assertion that he was where he 

had a right to be when he smelled marijuana coming from Moody’s home.

In analyzing the denial of a suppression motion, we review factual 

findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of law enforcement 

action de novo. United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2010); United 

States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 406-07 (5th Cir. 1999). Where, as here, a search 

warrant is involved, we use a two-step process for considering a district court’s 

denial of a motion to suppress. Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. First, we ask whether 

the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Id. If it does, no 

further analysis is necessary, and the district court’s denial will be affirmed. 

Id. If the exception does not apply, however, we proceed to the second step: 

“ensur[ing] that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that 

probable cause existed.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and ellipsis 

omitted). 

Our review of the record and pertinent jurisprudence supports the 

district court’s conclusion that Moody’s driveway was not part of the curtilage 

of his home. See United States v. Beene, 818 F.3d 157, 162 (5th Cir. 2016), 

petition for cert. filed, No. 15-9651 (June 8, 2016). Accordingly, Moody has not 

shown that the affidavit underlying the warrant was grounded in a falsehood, 

nor has he shown that the searching officers did not act in good faith by relying 

on the warrant, and there is no need to conduct any further analysis. See

Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10910 Document: 00513682678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2016