Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01802/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01802-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John M. Legros
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1802

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

John M. Legros, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 17, 2008

Filed: January 29, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After the district court1

 denied his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant

to a search warrant, John Legros entered a conditional plea of guilty to possessing one

or more firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2) (with consent of court and

government, defendant may enter conditional plea of guilty and reserve right to have

appellate court review adverse determination of specified pretrial motion). On appeal,

Legros argues that the district court erred in denying his suppression motion because

the warrant’s supporting affidavit failed to establish probable cause, and the warrant

was overbroad. 

Appellate Case: 07-1802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2008 Entry ID: 3396441
-2-

Upon careful review, we hold that the supporting affidavit provided a

substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. See United States v.

Solomon, 432 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); United States v.

Tyler, 238 F.3d 1036, 1038 (8th Cir. 2001) (court considers all facts for cumulative

meaning in determining whether probable cause exists); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462

U.S. 213, 244 n.13 (1983) (relevant inquiry in probable-cause determination is not

whether particular conduct is “innocent” or “guilty,” but degree of suspicion that

attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts); United States v. Ryan, 293 F.3d 1059,

1062 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that odor of ether coupled with other facts established

probable cause); United States v. Nation, 243 F.3d 467, 470 (8th Cir. 2001) (probable

cause does not require that police observe every component in illegal drug operation

before applying for warrant); United States v. Koelling, 992 F.2d 817, 822 (8th Cir.

1993) (whether averments in affidavit are sufficiently timely to establish probable

cause depends on particular circumstances of case, and vitality of probable cause

cannot be quantified by simply counting number of days between occurrence of facts

and issuance of affidavit).

We also agree with the district court’s determination that the warrant was not

overbroad. See United States v. Gleich, 397 F.3d 608, 611 (8th Cir. 2005) (to satisfy

particularity requirement of Fourth Amendment, items to be seized must be described

with sufficient particularity as to enable searcher to locate items with reasonable effort

and avoid seizing wrong items); see also United States v. Krasaway, 881 F.2d 550,

553 (8th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court’s denial of motion to suppress because,

even if objectionable portions of warrant were severed, evidence seized from

residence would clearly fall within valid portions of warrant).

Because the search warrant was valid, we need not address Legros’s argument

regarding the inapplicability of the “good faith” exception.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2008 Entry ID: 3396441