Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-04154/USCOURTS-ca4-23-04154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clyde Turaine Brand
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLYDE TURAINE BRAND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00012-TDS-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Brian M. Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4154 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Following his indictment on federal drug and firearm charges, Clyde Turaine Brand 

moved to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant issued by a state court 

judge. He argued that the affidavit supporting the warrant application failed to establish 

probable cause for the search and, further, that the law enforcement officers who conducted 

the search could not have relied on the warrant in good faith. The district court denied the 

motion, and Brand was later convicted at trial. Brand now appeals, challenging only the 

resolution of his motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

“We review the district court’s legal conclusions on a motion to suppress de novo 

and factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Darosa, 102 F.4th 228, 233 (4th Cir. 

2024), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 24-5335, 2024 WL 4427505 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2024). 

Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant is valid only if it is supported by probable 

cause. Id. Where probable cause is lacking, the usual remedy is suppression of the 

evidence obtained from the search. United States v. Oscar-Torres, 507 F.3d 224, 227 (4th 

Cir. 2007). However, “[u]nder Leon’s ‘good faith’ exception to the suppression remedy 

for a Fourth Amendment violation, evidence will not be suppressed if it is obtained by 

police officers in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant, even if that warrant 

later is determined to be invalid.” United States v. Blakeney, 949 F.3d 851, 861 (4th Cir. 

2020) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23 (1984)). But the good faith 

exception will not apply “when the judicial officer [who issued the warrant] wholly 

abandoned his role as a neutral and detached decision maker and served merely as a ‘rubber 

stamp’ for the police,” or “when the affidavit supporting the warrant was so lacking in 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4154 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” 

United States v. Wellman, 663 F.3d 224, 228-29 (4th Cir. 2011).

After finding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the district 

court held, in the alternative, that any deficiency in the warrant did not require suppression 

in light of the good faith exception. Brand disputes the latter point, asserting that the search 

warrant was supported by only a barebones affidavit that was rubber-stamped by the state 

court judge and on which no reasonable officer could rely. We disagree. At a minimum, 

the affidavit alleged that one or two confidential sources purchased heroin and cocaine 

from Brand at a residence, then surrendered the substances to law enforcement. Moreover, 

we discern nothing in the record to suggest that the state court judge merely rubber-stamped 

the warrant application.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4154 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 3