Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01549/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01549-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe L. Franklin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1549

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Arkansas.

Joe L. Franklin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 18, 2009

Filed: January 25, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joe L. Franklin conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to

distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). He

appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 09-1549 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Entry ID: 3627229
-2-

I.

In May 2008, a confidential informant notified narcotics detectives in

Fayetteville, Arkansas, that Franklin was supplying cocaine to a street dealer named

Rodney Watson. The detectives began monitoring Franklin and thereafter observed

Watson enter and exit Franklin’s house before meeting with the informant to complete

drug deals. In the course of their investigation, the detectives also obtained Franklin’s

bank records from the previous eight months, which revealed more than $145,000 in

total transactions, including a substantial number of cash deposits. 

On June 19, 2008, Detective Greg Lovett discussed the investigation with

Officer Hunter Carnahan of the Fayetteville Police Department, who was familiar with

Franklin and aware that his driver’s license had been suspended. After observing

Franklin driving a vehicle later that day, Carnahan conducted a traffic stop and placed

Franklin under arrest. Police officers discovered cocaine on Franklin’s person while

transporting him to jail. 

Relying exclusively on the information obtained prior to the arrest, an Arkansas

judge issued a warrant to search Franklin’s residence, which resulted in the discovery

of additional incriminating evidence. 

II.

On an appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review the

district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.

United States v. Arciniega, 569 F.3d 394, 397 (8th Cir. 2009). Franklin argues that

Officer Carnahan lacked probable cause to make the traffic stop, and he contends that

the search warrant was invalid because it was based on unreliable statements from a

confidential informant. Both arguments are without merit.

Appellate Case: 09-1549 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Entry ID: 3627229
2

Franklin’s pro se brief raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and

requests appointment of a new attorney. The request for new counsel is denied, and

Franklin is advised that any remaining ineffective assistance claim should be pursued

by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

-3-

 Police officers have probable cause to make a warrantless arrest if they have

information that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been

committed. United States v. Caves, 890 F.2d 87, 93 (8th Cir. 1989). Based on the

information he received from Detective Lovett, Officer Carnahan could have

reasonably believed that Franklin was dealing cocaine. Carnahan also knew that

Franklin’s driver’s license was suspended and believed Franklin was violating the law

by driving a vehicle. As the district court recognized, the traffic stop and arrest were

justified on either basis. 

We likewise conclude that the search warrant was supported by probable cause.

Probable cause for a search warrant exists if the facts in the affidavit establish a fair

probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the area to be searched. United

States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1999). Statements from an informant may

support probable cause if the informant is reliable or if the information is corroborated

by independent evidence. United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir.

1993). Although Franklin contends that the search warrant was predicated solely on

the confidential informant’s claim that Franklin was a drug supplier, the affidavit

proves otherwise. Among other things, the affidavit cited the surveillance of

Franklin’s house and the suspicious transactions in his bank account. Taken together,

the information was more than sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of

Franklin’s residence. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Franklin’s

motion to suppress evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.2

 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1549 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Entry ID: 3627229