FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT DEC 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12209 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 3 3 3 - C R - J HH - HG D U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s N O R M A N O L I V E R G R A N T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 17, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: N or m a n O l i ve rG ran t ap p e a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons , a f t e ra j ur y tr i a l , f

or p o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c r a c k c o c a i n e , a v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; b e i n g a f

e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m, a vi ol a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C.2

§ 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) ; a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a n u n r e g i s t e r e d f i r e a r m, a v i o l a t i o n o f

2 6 U . S. C. § 5 68 1. O n app ea l , G ra n t a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourter re d b y denyi ng hi s pre tr i a l mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e th a t w a s s e i z e d f r o m h i s h o me p u r s u a n t t o a s e a r c h w arran t . H e c ont e nds tha tthe a f f i da vi tof D e t e c t i ve H e a th B oa c kl e , on w hi c h the w a r r a nt w a s ba s e d, c on t a i ne d i nt e nt i on a l mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on s of w hat tr a ns pi r e d dur i ng a drug tr a ns a c t i on be tw e en G ran t a nd a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt ( “ C I ” ) , j us tpr i ort o G r a nt ’ s a r r e s t . M or e s pe c i f i c a l l y , G r a nta r gue s tha tD e t e c t i ve B o a c k le te s tif

ie d a t th e s u p p r e s s io n h e a r i n g th a t h e d id n o t o b s e r v e G r a n t ta lk in g to th e C I , th a t h e d id n o t s e e G r a n t g o in to th e b a c k d o o ro f h is h o m e a n d r e tu r n w ith na r c ot i c s , a nd tha the ha d noto b serv ed t he tr a ns a c t i on be c a us e i toc c ur r e d i ns i de the ho m e, w here as i n t he se ar ch w arra ntaf fi davi t , B oa ck l e s t at ed thathe ob se rved th e tr a n s a c t i o n o c c u ro u t s i d e th e h o m e a n d n e v e r s a w th e C I g o i n t o th e h o m e . As a r e s u lt, G r a n t a r g u e s th a t B o a c k le ’s in te n tio n a l m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s in th e a f f id a v it r e nde rthe w a r r a nta nd the s ubs e que n t s e a r c h of G r a nt ’ s hom e i nva l i d unde rthe Fo u r th A me n d me n t . A f t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. W e r e v ie w th e d is t r i c t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c ts in th e d e n ia l o f

a m o tio n to supp re ss for c l ea r e rr or, and t he appl i ca t i on of l aw to th o se fa ct s de nov o. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. N ova t on, 271 F . 3d 968, 9 8 6 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . A c c or di ngl y , “ w e w i l l not ove r tur n a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on tha tom i s s i ons orm i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons i n a3

w ar ra ntaf

fi davi tw er e notre ckl es s o r i nt ent i on al un l es s c l ea rl y e rr on eous. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Je nk i ns, 90 1 F . 2d 10 75 , 10 79 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ).

“ P r oba bl e c a us e t o s uppor ta s e a r c h w a r r a nte x i st s w h en the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s a l l ow a c onc l us i on tha tthe r e i s a f a i rpr oba bi l i t y of

f i ndi ng c ontr a ba nd ore vi de nc e a ta pa r t i c ul a rl oc a t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B rundi dge , 170 F. 3d 13 50 , 13 52 ( 11 th Ci r . 19 99 ) . To pr e va i l on a mot i on t o s up pr e s s e vi de nce tha tw a s s e i z e d pur s ua ntt o a s e a r c h w a r r a nt , ba s e d on a l l e ga t i ons of f a l s i ty i n the supp ort i ng af

fi davi t , the chal l en g in g party has the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng (1) that the a f f i a ntm a de the a l l eg ed m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons orom i s s i ons know i ngl y or r e c kl e s s l y , a nd ( 2) tha tex cl u si on of the a l l e ge d m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons ori nc l us i on of the a l l e ge d om i s s i ons w oul d r e s ul ti n a l a c k of pr oba b l e cau se. N ova t on, 271 F . 3d at 9 8 6 -8 7 . H o w ev er , “ w e m u st g iv e g re at d ef er en c e to a lo w er co u rt’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u p p o r te d a f in d in g o f p r o b a b le c a us e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t e i ge r , 318 F . 3d 1039, 1046 ( 11th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( quot a t i ons o m itte d ) . T h e r e f

o r e , a r e v ie w in g c o u r t “s h o u ld n o t in te rp r e t s u p p o r tin g a f f id a v its i n a hy pe r t e c hni c a l m a nne r; r a the r , a r e a l i s t i c c om m ons e ns e a ppr oa c h s houl d be e m p lo y e d . . . to p r o m o te th e h ig h le v e l o f d e f e r e n c e t r a d i t io n a lly g iv e n to m a gi s tr a t e s i n the i rpr oba bl e c a use d et e r m i na t i ons . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l l e r , 24 F . 3d 13 57 , 13 61 (11t h C i r. 19 94 ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed).4

H e r e , G r a ntha s nots how n tha tB oa c kl e ’ s a f f i da vi tc ont a i ne d de l i be r a t e or r e c kl e s s m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons , ortha th i s t est i m ony a tthe s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng cont ra di ct ed the i nform at i on i n h i s a ff i davi ti n any m at er i al w ay . G ra ntar gu es that the w a r r a nti s i nva l i d be c a us e B oa c kl e st at e d i n hi s a f f i da vi ttha the obs e r ve d the tr a ns a c t i on oc c urout s i de G r a nt ’ s hom e a f t e rG r a nte nt e r ed t he ba c kdoora nd r e tur ne d w i th a ba g of

c oc a i ne , w he r e a s B oa c kl e t e s t i f i e d t h at h e d i d notobs e r ve the tra nsac t i on , thathe di d no tse e G ra ntgo i nt o t he ho use a nd re turn w i th cocai ne, a n d th a t th e C I a c tu a lly w e n t in to th e r e s id e n c e , w h e r e th e tr a n s a c tio n o c c u r r e d . F r om ourr e vi e w of

the r e c or d, B oa c kl e ne ve rs t a t e d i n the a f f i da vi ttha the a c tua l l y obs e r ve d the tr a ns a c t i on oc c urout s i de the hom e . R a the r , he s a i d tha tthe C I w e ntt o G r a nt ’ s ba c k doora nd of f e r e d t o buy s om e c r a c k c oc a i ne , w hi c h G r a nt r e tr i e v e d f

r o m i n s i d e th e h o me a n d s o l d t o th e CI . Th e i n f o r ma n t th e n l e f

t a nd turned t he drug s over t o B oackl e, w ho w as i n t he al l ey nextt o the ho m e. M e a nw hi l e , a tt h e he a r i ng B oa c kl e t e s t i f i e d tha the w e ntt o G r a nt ’ s hom e w i th the C I, th a t h e w a tc h e d th e b ack d o o r fro m th e al l ey w h i l e th e C I w en tt o th e h o u se an d pur c ha s e d na r c ot i c s , a nd tha tthe C I r e tur ne d w i th the pur c ha s e d na r c ot i c s a nd to ld B o a c k le w h a t h a d tr a n s p ir e d . S i m pl y put , a “ r e a l i s t i c a nd c om m ons e ns e ” r e vi e w of the a f f i da vi ta nd s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng tr a ns c r i ptr e ve a l s tha tB oa c kl e pr ovi ded a c ons i s t e nta c c ountMo re ov e r, any a dditi on a l de ta ils that D e te c tiv e B oa c kleprov ide d at th e he ari ngwo uld 1 have no e ffe ct on th e ultimate proba ble ca use dete rmination if they had been included in the aff idavit. See Novaton, 271 F.3d at 986-87. Boa ckle testified that he gave the C I marke d currency to purcha se the drug s, the CI repor ted seeing drug s that were laying out in plain view on the kitchen table, the CI

knew that Grant had g

uns and a c ooler with additional dug s “somewhe re in the house ” from prior oc casions when he ente red thehome, and the CI conver sed with Gra

nt on the back porch “for approximately

10-15 minutes.” Ag ain, this information does not in any way contra dict any

thing that Boa ckle state d the af fidavit, and thesedetails would haveonly strengthened the f

i n d ing of prob a blec a us e ha d th e y

be e n in c lud e d in

thea ff ida vit . 5 of the m a t e r i a l f

a c t s . M i l l e r , 24 F . 3d a t1361. A s the a f f i da vi tw a s noti n v al i d , the 1 di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n fi nd i ng thatthe i ss ui ng j ud g e “ had b ef ore her am p l e ev i d en ce w h i ch sat i sfi e d th e ‘ p ro b ab l e cau se’ req u i rem en t . ” A cco rd i n g l y, w e affi rm G ran t ’ s co n v i ct i o n s. AF F I RME D.