Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-02088/USCOURTS-ca10-94-02088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Leonard Leahy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES LEONARD LEAHY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

FILED 

Ullltecl States Coart ot Appaob Tenth Circuit 

FEB 1 3 1995 

PATRICK FISHER -- Clerk 

No. 94-2088 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. CR-93-360-JP) 

Roger A. Finzel, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Tara C. Neda, Assistant U.S. Attorney (John J. Kelly, United 

States Attorney, with her on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before BRORBY, LOGAN and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 94-2088 Document: 01019280503 Date Filed: 02/13/1995 Page: 1 
Defendant James Leonard Leahy appeals his conviction on two 

counts of felon-in-possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g) (1) and 924(a) (2), and two counts of making false 

statements in connection with acquiring a firearm, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a) (6) and 924(a) (1). Defendant argues that 

(1) the search warrant for his residence was overly broad and 

(2) the district court erred in refusing to require the government 

to identify the informant whose tip led to issuance of the search 

warrant. 

A confidential informant (CI) provided a tip to Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Agent Gwen Cook that defendant was a 

convicted felon who possessed a firearm. Cook confirmed the 

accuracy of portions of the tip, including defendant's address and 

prior felony conviction. Cook's affidavit supporting her application for a search warrant reported that the CI had provided 

reliable data about firearms and contraband on four prior occasions, and recited information obtained from the CI that she 

independently confirmed. When ATF agents executed the search of 

defendant's residence they recovered a loaded semi-automatic Colt 

revolver, ammunition, pawn receipts for three additional firearms 

he had purchased, and other firearm sales receipts. Cook later 

discovered that defendant had falsified information about his 

prior felony conviction on ATF Forms 4473 filled out during the 

purchase of some of the firearms.1 

1 A Form 4473 must be completed by the person purchasing a 

firearm from a federally-licensed firearms dealer. One of the 

questions on the form specifically addresses whether the purchaser 

has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more 

Continued to next page 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-2088 Document: 01019280503 Date Filed: 02/13/1995 Page: 2 
After his indictment, defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant, alleging that it 

lacked sufficient particularity. Defendant also sought to compel 

the government to disclose the identification of the CI. The 

district court denied the motion to suppress, and concluded that 

the motion for disclosure of the CI's identity was moot. The 

court also determined that defendant's stated purpose for the 

disclosure was improper because it would not support a defense to 

the indictment. 

We review de novo the district court's determination that the 

search warrant was not overly broad. United States v. Robertson, 

21 F.3d 1030, 1031 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 238 

(1994). 

Under the Fourth Amendment, no search warrant may issue 

exce~pt "upon [1] probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, 

and [2] particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 

person or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. This 

language imposes a common sense standard on the judicial officer 

authorizing the issuance of a warrant. Brinegar v. United States, 

338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949). "The particularity requirement ensures 

that a search is confined in scope to particularly described 

Continued from previous page 

than one year. If the purchaser answers "yes" the dealer may not 

sell them the firearm. Defendant received a five-year probated 

sentence for his prior felony conviction. The government's case 

also included evidence that a handwriting analysis confirmed defendant signed the Form 4473s containing false information. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-2088 Document: 01019280503 Date Filed: 02/13/1995 Page: 3 
evidence relating to a specific crime for which there is demonstrated probable cause." I R. Supp. doc. 1 at 2. Voss v. Bergsgaard, 774 F.2d 402, 404 (lOth Cir. 1985). 

The application to search defendant's residence stated that 

defendant was a convicted felon, and that a CI who had consistently provided reliable information to law enforcement had 

advised that defendant "was in physical possession of a handgun at 

his residence." I R. Supp. doc. 1 at 2. The search warrant 

authorized seizure of "firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories, 

receipts and/or other documents pertaining to the possession and 

acquisition of firearms and ammunition." Id. doc. 1 at 1. 

Defendant argues that the warrant lacked the necessary particularity because the warrant language encompassed antique 

firearms that are specifically excluded from the prohibitions of 

18 U.S.C. § 92l(a) (3), and by reference, from § 922(g) (1). See 

id. § 92l(a) (16) (definitions in§ 921 apply to Ch. 44 of Title 

18, which includes § 922). We disagree. The search warrant's 

supporting affidavit referenced an 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) violation, a felon-in-possession of a firearm charge for which defendant was ultimately convicted and was specifically limited to 

"firearm[s] ... illegally possessed by" defendant. I R. Supp. 

doc. 1 (emphasis added). A common sense reading of the search 

warrant would not permit seizure of antique firearms because 

§ 92l(a) (3) states that the term firearm "does not include an 

antique firearm," which defendant could have lawfully possessed. 

Defendant asserts that the seized Colt revolver was so old as 

to have required some indicia that the CI could differentiate 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-2088 Document: 01019280503 Date Filed: 02/13/1995 Page: 4 
between a legal antique gun and one a felon could not legally 

possess. Defendant argues that without such information the 

search warrant lacked particularity. We are satisfied that the 

warrant did not leave the officials conducting the search the 

discretion to search or seize items other than those directly 

related to the crimes identified in the warrant. Cf. Lo-Ji Sales, 

Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 325-26 (1979). The search focused 

only on firearms and documentation pertaining to firearms defendant possessed in violation of § 922(g) {1). The search warrant 

was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause. 

We review defendant's assertion that the district court erred 

in denying his request to reveal the CI's identity for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Martinez, 979 F.2d 1424, 1425-26 

(lOth Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1824 (1993). 

Disclosure of a CI's identity involves "balancing the public 

interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense." Roviaro v. United States, 

353 U.S. 53, 62 (1957). "A defendant may obtain the identity and 

whereabouts of an informer if his testimony might be relevant to 

the defendant's case and justice would be best served by disclosure." United States v. Reardon, 787 F.2d 512, 517 (lOth Cir. 

1986). Disclosure is not required if the CI did not participate 

in the illegal activity or when information sought is cumulative. 

Id. A CI's testimony must be shown to be valuable to a defendant; 

mere speculation is not enough. United States v. Mendoza-Salgado, 

964 F.2d 993, 1001 (lOth Cir. 1992). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-2088 Document: 01019280503 Date Filed: 02/13/1995 Page: 5 
Defendant argues that not allowing him to question the CI 

foreclosed the possibility of establishing that Agent Cook 

"knowingly and recklessly" sought an overly broad search warrant, 

or exploring the extent of the CI's knowledge about legal (presumably antique) firearms. Because we have upheld the district 

court's finding that the warrant was supported by probable cause 

and met the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement, the CI's 

actual ability to distinguish illegal firearms from antiques was 

irrelevant. 

Further, defendant failed altogether to establish how the 

identity of the informant might contribute meaningfully to his 

defense. The defense did not seek to prove that the seized 

revolver was in fact an antique that defendant could legally possess, in which case the CI's testimony might have been relevant. 

See United States v. LaRoche, 723 F.2d 1541, 1543 (11th Cir.) 

(defendant did not raise defense that firearm was an antique; 

government not required to prove the firearm was not within 

statutory exception), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1245 (1984). 

Defendant did not attempt to demonstrate that the affiant, Agent 

Cook, knowingly submitted a false affidavit, or swore to statements in her affidavit with reckless disregard for the truth. 

United States v. Hernandez, 829 F.2d 988, 992 (lOth Cir. 1987), 

cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1013 (1988); Appellant's Brief at 20 

(defendant contends Cook knowingly applied for an overly broad 

warrant in order to ascertain if defendant was committing a 

crime). Thus, defendant established no imperative for revealing 

the CI's identity. Defendant's right to due process and a fair 

-6-

Appellate Case: 94-2088 Document: 01019280503 Date Filed: 02/13/1995 Page: 6 
trial was not impaired by the district court's protection of the 

CI's identity. 

AFFIRMED. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 94-2088 Document: 01019280503 Date Filed: 02/13/1995 Page: 7