2003 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-27-2003

USA v. Lilly

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 02-1955

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Lilly" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 708.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/708
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 02-1955 

 ___________ 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

 CLAYTON LILLY, 

 Appellant 

 ___________ 

 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 (D.C. Civil No. 01-cr-00144) 

 District Judge: The Honorable Alan N. Bloch 

 ___________ 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 March 11, 2003 

 BEFORE: SLOVITER, NYGAARD, and ALARCON, Circuit Judges. 

 (Filed March 27, 2003) 

 ___________ 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 ___________ 

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 

 Appellant, Clayton Lilly, was convicted, following a bench trial before the 

Honorable Alan Bloch, of one count of possession with intent to deliver more than 50 

grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii). The court 

sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment to be followed by 5 years of supervised 

release. On appeal, Lilly contends that the court erred by concluding that search warrants 

were supported by probable cause. Lilly argues that the supporting affidavit contained 

false and misleading information, and that the officers executing the warrant did not 

exercise objective good faith in relying on the warrant. We will affirm. 

 Lilly’s argument is that the warrants in question relied upon information 

provided by a confidential informant who had "very little, if any, credibility." This 

conclusion by Appellant has insufficient support in the record. He argues further that 

because the confidential informant was also charged with drug performance, he only 

cooperated with the police to save himself. This, of course, is true. But, in and of itself, 

it is insufficient to nullify the information given by a confidential informant. 

Nonetheless, Lilly further argues that the police, knowing that the confidential informant 

was only cooperating with the police to save himself, did not try to corroborate the 
information. This statement is simply untrue. 

 Appellant concedes that the police watched the Appellant while he placed a 

bag filled with a white substance in his car and removed it from his car, taking it into his 

store. Appellant also concedes that the police officers observed him sell something to 

several people on the street. Nonetheless, he argues that "none of this amounts to very 

much." We conclude that all of the above "amounts to" a sufficient quantum of evidence 

upon which the issuing magistrate could rely upon in giving the police officers the 

warrant. 

 We likewise conclude that the affidavits were neither false or misleading. 

Appellant alleges that the government omitted four essential facts from the affidavits 

upon which the warrants were based. Appellant argues that information contained in the 

affidavit, that the confidential informant was reliable because he had helped the police in 

earlier arrests, is inaccurate because the affidavit fails to mention that none of the arrests 

had lead to convictions. He also argues that the affidavit failed to mention that the 

confidential informant had been arrested for drug possession and delivery. The sum of all 

this, he argues, is that the affidavit did not give the issuing magistrate full information as 

to the reliability of the informant. We disagree. 

 First of all, the officer brought to the issuing magistrate’s attention the fact 

that the confidential informant had provided information that lead to "the arrest" of 

certain persons. Although convictions are not mentioned, the omission does not amount 

to a falsehood, nor is it misleading. However, even assuming that this fact should have 

been included, the police corroborated the tip by actual observation. 

 In sum, the information provided by the confidential informant, and the 

observations made by the police officers were sufficient probable cause upon which to 

issue the search warrant. We will affirm. 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing opinion. 

 /s/ Richard L. Nygaard 

 Circuit Judge