Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06133/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06133-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Joseph Boxie
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FI LED 

lJnfred Stutes Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

OCT - 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER. ----------- Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

vs. ) No. 90-6133 

) ( D. C. No. CR-88-238-R) 

KEITH JOSEPH BOXIE, ) (W. D. Okla.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant-appellant Keith Joseph Boxie pled guilty to 

conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 u.s.c. 

§ 846. He now appeals arguing that the district court should have 

suppressed evidence allegedly seized pursuant to a defective 

search warrant. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6133 Document: 010110059536 Date Filed: 10/09/1990 Page: 1 
\ 

I. 

Prior to imposition of sentence, defendant filed with his 

guilty plea a pleading purporting to reserve his right to appeal 

the denial of his suppression motion. United States v. Boxie, No. 

CR-88-238-R (W.D. Okla. Dec. 30, 1988). Judgment was entered on 

March 10, 1989. Defendant failed to file a notice of appeal 

within ten days as required by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). In denying a 

motion for release pending appeal, a motions panel of this court 

deferred to the merits panel consideration of whether defendant's 

failure to timely file his notice of appeal deprived this court of 

jurisdiction. See United States v. Boxie, No. 90-6133, unpub. 

order (10th Cir. June 20, 1990). 

In United States v. Green, 847 F.2d 622 (10th Cir. 1988) (en 

bane), this court held that the premature filing of a defendant's 

notice of appeal after conviction but before sentencing did not 

deprive this court of jurisdiction. Id. at 623. While defendant 

failed to file a formal notice of appeal, we find this case 

controlled by Lemke v. United States, 346 U.S. 325 (1953), which 

provides that "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which 

does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.," Id. at 

326 (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a)). Although defendant's 

"reservation" did not constitute a formal notice of appeal, it 

provided all interested parties with "full notice" that defendant 

intended to challenge the district court's suppression order. See 

id. Accordingly, no harm having befallen any party, we construe 

defendant's motion as a premature notice of appeal which under 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6133 Document: 010110059536 Date Filed: 10/09/1990 Page: 2 
Green was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this court 

under 28 u.s.c. § 1291. 847 F.2d at 623. 

II. 

Police arrested defendant in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma after he 

received a package containing cocaine base mailed from Los 

Angeles, California. The package had been searched by postal 

authorities prior to defendant's arrest pursuant to a search 

warrant. The search warrant was issued upon an affidavit by a 

postal inspector listing seven reasons he suspected that the 

package contained contraband: 

1) the return address on the package did not exist; 

2) the return address was sixty-five miles away from the Los 

Angeles Airport from where the package was mailed while 

the Onterio Airport was only five miles from the return 

address; 

3) the package was labeled with the "Gunk" engine cleaner 

trademark; cans of "Gunk" with false bottoms were 

available in the Los Angeles area; 

4) Los Angeles police recently had seized drugs concealed in 

the false bottom of coffee cans; 

5) it cost more to ship a package of "Gunk" from Los Angeles 

to Oklahoma City through the U.S. mail than it would to 

purchase the product retail in Oklahoma City; 

6) cocaine and marijuana had been purchased by a police 

informant at the address where the package was sent; and 

7) the package made metallic sounds when moved. 

The affidavit failed to state that a canine sniff of the suspect 

package had failed to reveal the odor of contraband. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6133 Document: 010110059536 Date Filed: 10/09/1990 Page: 3 
III. 

Defendant claims that he was entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), attacking 

the search warrant and that the warrant was issued without 

probable cause. 

A. 

A criminal defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing 

under Franks upon satisfaction of a two-pronged test. United 

States v. Owens, 882 F.2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1989). First, the 

defendant must make a showing that the warrant was based on an 

affidavit containing either deliberate falsehoods or reckless 

disregard for the truth. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. A defendant 

need not furnish clear proof of deliberate or reckless omission to 

be entitled to a Franks hearing; however, he must make a 

"substantial primary showing" of such conduct. Owens, 882 F.2d at 

1498 (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 170). Second, to entitle the 

defendant to a hearing, the alleged misstatement must materially 

effect the determination of probable cause. In assessing the 

materiality of a misstatement, we must determine "whether the 

warrant would have been issued if the judge had been given 

accurate information." United States v. Page, 808 F.2d 723, 729 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 989 (1987). "[I]f, when 

material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless 

disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in 

the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6133 Document: 010110059536 Date Filed: 10/09/1990 Page: 4 
hearing is required." Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72. The question 

of materiality presents a mixed question of law and fact subject 

to de novo review. Page, 808 F.2d at 729. 

We treat the omission of material facts from an affidavit in 

the same manner as the provision of false facts. See United 

States v. Mankani, 738 F.2d 538, 545-46 (2d Cir. 1984). To 

determine whether an omission is material, we inquire whether the 

magistrate would have found probable cause had he been aware of 

the omitted information. See generally Page, 808 F.2d at 729. 

Where probable cause still exists after consideration of the 

omitted information, the omission is deemed immaterial and no 

Franks hearing is required. See United States v. Ferguson, 758 

F.2d 843, 849 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 841 (1987). 

Defendant argues that omission of the canine sniff results 

from the postal inspector's affidavit constituted a sufficient 

showing of deliberate falsehood to entitled defendant to a Franks 

hearing. This argument ignores the second prong of the Franks 

inquiry: materiality. Even if the postal inspector deliberately 

withheld information concerning the canine sniff results--the most 

defendant could hope to prove in a Franks hearing--the withheld 

information did not materially affect the finding of probable 

cause. Nor was defendant entitled to a Franks hearing to show 

that the package had been opened by postal inspectors prior to 

issuance of the warrant. Defendant failed to advance a 

"substantial primary showing" beyond mere speculation that the 

package had been tampered with. See Owens, 882 F.2d at 1498. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6133 Document: 010110059536 Date Filed: 10/09/1990 Page: 5 
B. 

The Supreme Court has adopted a "'totality of the 

circumstances'" approach to the "'common-sense practical 

question'" of probable cause. United States v. Corral-Corral, 899 

F.2d 927, 931 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 

U.S. 213, 230 (1983)). In making a probable cause determination, 

"the evidence must be seen and weighed not in terms of 

library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in 

the field of law enforcement." Gates, 462 U.S. at 232 (quoting 

United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981)). An affidavit 

must contain sufficient information to enable the magistrate to 

make an independent determination of probable cause, not just 

ratify the conclusions of the attesting officer. Gates, 462 U.S. 

at 239. On the other hand, a magistrate's probable cause 

determination is entitled to considerable deference. Id. at 236. 

Here, the postal inspector swore out an affidavit indicating 

that a package mailed under suspicious circumstances was sent to a 

residence where a police informant previously had purchased drugs. 

The postal inspector also had reason to suspect the package 

contained cans of engine cleaner with contraband stuffed in false 

bottoms. Finally, the cost of mailing the engine cleaner was more 

than the cost of purchasing the product in Oklahoma City. After 

considering this information along with the omitted canine sniff 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6133 Document: 010110059536 Date Filed: 10/09/1990 Page: 6 
• I 

result, we are satisfied that probable cause existed that the 

package contained contraband. 

AFFIRMED. 

-7-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6133 Document: 010110059536 Date Filed: 10/09/1990 Page: 7