Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03568/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Mark Dishman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Clyde H. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth

Circuit, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 03-3568

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Robert Mark Dishman,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa.

 [PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: May 12, 2004

 Filed: August 4, 2004

________________

Before BYE, HAMILTON,1

 and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Robert Mark Dishman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was

sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment. Dishman preserved his right to appeal the

Appellate Case: 03-3568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2004 Entry ID: 1795617 
2

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

2

district court's2 denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized at his residence.

Dishman argues that the search warrants were not supported by probable cause, that

they contained technical deficiencies, and that the district court erred in making an

alternative finding that the officers' actions were protected by the good-faith

exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897

(1984). We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, and we affirm.

Deputy Sheriff Vos applied for the search warrants based on his direct

observations, as well as information he had obtained from other law enforcement

officers. The affidavits of Deputy Vos contained the following information: Deputy

Vos observed an individual purchase three cans of Coleman fuel, a substance

sometimes used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The individual left the

store in a truck registered to Michael Belieu, who, according to information from

Deputy Cook, was involved in the sale and manufacture of methamphetamine. The

truck arrived at a residence owned by Robert Dishman, who previously had been

charged with tampering with anhydrous ammonia, another methamphetamine

precursor, and who, according to Deputy Griffiths, was involved in the manufacturing

of methamphetamine. On another occasion, Deputy Vos had discovered a map to Mr.

Dishman's residence when cleaning up a methamphetamine lab. Deputy Wilbur

informed Deputy Vos that he had observed several items that are used in the

manufacture of methamphetamine when responding to a domestic dispute at the

Dishman residence. In the second affidavit, Deputy Vos noted that Officer

Defenbaugh had observed an active methamphetamine lab, finished product, and

known precursors after executing the first warrant, and that Dishman had admitted

to Officer Defenbaugh that all the individuals present were involved with the

manufacture of methamphetamine. Dishman argues that these assertions could not

Appellate Case: 03-3568 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2004 Entry ID: 1795617 
3

have established probable cause for the search of his residence and vehicles because

they contained stale and uncorroborated information. 

We give considerable deference to the issuing judge's determination of

probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). Our inquiry is to be

focused on whether the issuing judge "had a substantial basis for concluding that a

search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing." Id. (internal marks and quotation

omitted). Applying the "totality-of-the-circumstances approach," id. at 230, we

conclude that the facts set forth in the affidavits created a "fair probability" that law

enforcement officers would discover evidence of illegal drug activity at the Dishman

residence, see id. at 238. Even if the individual facts alleged in the affidavits would

not alone have established probable cause, viewed together they provided enough

credibility and support for the warrants to issue. See United States v. Allen, 297 F.3d

790, 794 (8th Cir. 2002) (noting that we do not "evaluate each piece of information

independently; rather, we consider all of the facts for their cumulative meaning"). 

We reject Dishman's argument that the first warrant was invalid because the

application did not comply with Iowa law. Evidence seized by state officers in

conformity with the Fourth Amendment will not be suppressed in a federal

prosecution simply because the underlying search warrant failed to conform to state

law. See United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S.

878 (1994). 

Finally, we find no error in the district court's alternative reliance on the Leon

good-faith exception. There is no indication that the magistrate abandoned his

judicial role when he relied solely upon the facts asserted in the warrant applications

or when he signed a second warrant to expand the scope of the first. Further, the

district court credited the officer's testimony as to the timing of the warrants and the

searches, and that credibility finding is "virtually unreviewable on appeal," United

Appellate Case: 03-3568 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2004 Entry ID: 1795617 
4

States v. Gillon, 348 F.3d 755, 760 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1735

(2004). 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3568 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/04/2004 Entry ID: 1795617