### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Fe br uar y 8, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 04- 15168

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 0 0 8 - CR- RH 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 D W I G H T A . P R A T 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 orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 8, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , W IL S O N an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e: D w i gh tA . P ra t tappeal s the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o sup pres s e vi dence used to s e c u r e h is c o n v ic tio n s . H is a p p e a l p r e s e n ts u s w ith th e f o llo w in g q u e s tio n :United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. C t. 738, 160 L . Ed. 2d 621 (2005). 1 2 W he n a s e a r c h w a r r a nti s l os ta f t e ri t s e xe c ut i on a nd i s m i s s i ng a ta s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng, doe s the F our th A m e ndm e ntpr ohi bi tthe us e of othe re vi de nc e t o pr ove th e w a r r a n t’s e x is te n c e a n d d e s c r ip tiv e la n g u a g e ? W e h o ld th a t th e F o u r th A m endm entdo es no tproh i bi tthe use of ot her e vi dence t o est abl i sh the exi st ence an d th e c o n ten ts o f a lo st se ar ch w ar ra n t. T h er ef o re , w e a ff

irm th e d istrict co u rt’s deni al of P ra t t ’ s m ot i on t o sup pres s. W e a l so af fi rm P ra t t ’ s s ent ence , fi nd i ng that th e d i stri ctco u rtco m m i t t ed h arm l ess B oo ke r st atut ory e rr or. 1 I . Ba c k g r o und A . T h e S earc h In earl y N o v em b er 2 0 0 2 , D et ect i v e M o rg an W yso ck i o f t h e L eo n C o u n ty, F l or i da S he r i f

f’ s D e pa r t m e ntus e d a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a ntf ora c ontr ol l e d buy of 1 g ra m of po w der c ocai ne fr om P ra t t . W ys ocki l at erused t he confi dent i al i nf or m a ntf ora c ontr ol l e d buy of

0. 1 gr a m s of

c r a c k c oc a i ne f

r om P r a t t . T he i nform antt ol d W ys ocki abou tse vera l hand gu ns she obser ved i nsi de t he re si dence dur i ng the f

i r s tc ontr ol l e d buy . D ur i ng the s e c ond c ontr ol l e d buy , P r a t tt ol d the i nf or m a nttha the c oul d obt a i n a ha ndgun t o s e l l t o the i nf or m a nt . W y s oc ki subsequent l y pre pare d an aff i davi ti n sup po rtof an appl i ca t i on for a se ar ch w a r r a nt . H e the n pr e pa r e d a s e a r c h w a r r a ntt e m pl a t e c ont a i ni ng de s c r i pt i veTh e a ff ida vit ’s de sc ripti velanguag e state s: 2 [C ]ertain evidenc e, moreparticula rly described herein below, is beingkept in or upon a certain pre mise located . . . [on] 2026 Autumn Ln, Tallaha ssee F l. 32310. The re sidenceis a singlewide trailer located approx imately .2 miles west of the intersec tion of Springhill Rd. and Autumn L ane. The front door of the residenc e fac es south. The re sidenceis grey in color with burgundy

trim. A white mail box is located at the end of thedrivewa y with the numbers 2026 hand written on the sid e s. [Th e orig inal a ff

ida vit c onta ins thre e ph oto gra

ph s o f t here sid e nc e .] T his is the re sidenceto be sea

rche d. Be ing thepremises oc cupied by or under the control of a bla c ke[sic ] ma le , k

no wn a s D wi ght P ratt, and

thereis b e ingkept o n o r i n said premises c ertain person and e videnceof a c rime, to wit: Crack Cocaine, Cocaine, records pertainingto the sale, manuf acture, possession or de livery of a controlled substanc e, U.S. Curre ncy , para phernalia used in the sale, use , manufa cture , possession, or delivery of a c ontrolled substance , firea rms and any ite ms o f i de nti fi c atio n whic h tend s to e sta bli shc us tod

y or c ontrol o ve r s a id evidenc e and oc cupanc y

of the re sidencebeingsearched. 3 lan g u ag e o f th e p lace , p er so n , an d it em s to b e s ea rc h ed an d se ized . T h e tem p late’s la n g u a g e w a s e le c tr o n ic a lly c o p ie d f r o m th e a f

f id a v it. 2 O n D e c e m be r19, 2002, W y s oc ki t ook the a f f i da vi ta nd tw o c opi e s of the s e a r c h w a r r a n t te m p la te to th e c h a m b e r s o f L e o n C o u n ty J u d g e D o n a ld M o d e s itt, w ho s i gne d the a f

f i da vi ta nd i s s ue d a s e a r c h w a r r a nt . T ha ts a m e da y , W y s oc ki a nd ot her m em bers of t he L eon C ou nt y S heri ff’ s D epar t m entexec ut ed t he se ar ch w a r r a nta tP r a t t ’ s r e s i de nc e . W y s oc ki r e a d the w a r r a ntt o P r a t t . W y s oc ki s e i z e d a l oaded sem i -a ut om at i c pi st ol , 19 gram s of pow der c ocai ne, 60 gram s of m ar i j uana, P r a tt’s w a lle t c o n ta in in g h is id e n tif ic a tio n , a n d m is c e lla n e o u s d ru g p a r a p h e r n a lia . H e a l so com pl et ed an i nv ent ory of the i t em s s ei ze d. P ra t tw as ar re st ed and cop i es of t he w ar ra ntand t he i nv ent ory w er e l ef ton the ki t chen coun t er . W ys ocki re turned t o t he offi ce and p urpo rt edl y m ade c op i es of the se ar chPr att also argue d th at th e po rtion of thea ff ida vit that c ou ld p os sib ly

bec on str ue d a s a 3 war rant failed to describethe place , person, a nd items to be searched a nd seized. 4 w a r r a nt , the i nve nt or y , a nd the a f f i da vi t . A tthe t i m e of

the s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng, hi s f i l e s c ont a i ne d c opi e s of the i nve nt or y a nd the a f f i da vi tbutdi d notc ont a i n a c opy of the s e a r c h w a r r a nt . L i ke w i s e , the c l e r k’ s r e c or ds c ont a i ne d a l l buta c opy o f th e s e a r c h w a r r a n t. B a s e d on the c ontr ol l e d buy s a nd the i t e m s s e i z e d dur i ng the D e c e m be r19 s e a r c h, P r a t tw a s i ndi c t e d f ordi s tr i but i ng a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , na m e l y , c oc a i ne i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2 ( C ount 1) ; di stri bu t i ng cr ac k cocai ne i n v i ol at i on of t he sa m e s t atut es (C ou nt2); po ss es si ng w i th t he i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne i n v i ol at i on of t he sa m e s t atut es ( C o u n t 3 ) ; p o s s e s s in g a f ir e a r m in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

th e p o s s e s s io n in C o u n t 3 in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) ( C ount4) ; a nd pos s e s s i ng a f i r e a r m a nd a m m u n itio n a s a c o n v ic te d f e lo n in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( C o u n t 5 ) . B . H ea ri n g o n th e m o ti o n to su p p ress Ini t i al l y, P ra t tfi l ed a m ot i on t o sup pres s, as sum i ng base d o n t he se ar ch w a r r a nt ’ s a bs e nc e f

r om the r e c or d, tha tno j udge ha d i s s ue d a w a r r a nta nd tha tthe pol i c e onl y us e d the a f

f i da vi ta s a uthor i z a t i on f orthe s e a r c h. T he G ove r nm e nt

3 c o u n te r e d th a t a w a r r a n t w a s in d e e d is s u e d , b u t w a s lo s t a f te rth e s e a r c h . P r a tt s uppl e m e nt e d hi s m ot i on by a r gui ng tha tthe F our th A m e ndm e ntr e qui r e s theJudg e Modesitt repe ated the ma ntra that healways followed the same proc edure . 4 Q: Could you explain the normal proce ss when a la w enf orce ment of fi c e r c ome s to you

se e kin ga se arc h a wa rrant? A: All right. Ifollow the same process on e very occa sion . . . . The officer come s in, identifies that he' s a law enforc ement off icer . . . Ithen p la c e the m un de r o ath. Th e y pre se nt m e wi th a

du pli c ate copy of an a ffidavit and thesearch wa rra nt itself. Irevie w the aff idavit first. OnceI ' ve re viewed it, they areunder oath. Irequire the m to sign it

in my pre se nc e . . . . Ithen d ateit a nd sign it myse lf as fa r as the a ffidavit is conc erne d. Then I revie w the sea

rch war rant, whic h is always submitt ed to me as a proposed se arc h war rant. It's alrea dy

prepa red. I then compare that sea

rch w arrant with the aff

idavit to confirm that it’s a duplicate . With the modern proce ssing e quipment that we have , the way they do it, they

print the af fidavit, and then the y

duplicate it in the sea

rch w arrant ve rb atim . I

loo k th at ov e r, c on fi rm

that it is thesamethi ng , w ith thee xcepti on , o f c ours e , is [sic ] thefi nal orde ri nginf or matio n, is [si c] about the only

differencein the aff

idavit from the sea

rch wa rrant i tse lf

. I then s ign a

nd datethese arc h w arrant i n d up lic ate and pre sent it back to the off icer .

. . . 5 w a r r a nti t s e l f

t o be pr oduc e d a ttr i a l . P r a t tdi d nota l l e ge tha tthe of f i c e r s orthe G ove r nm e ntl os tthe w a r r a nti n ba d f a i th. A tthe he a r i ng on the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s , the G ove r nm e ntc a l l e d f our w i tness es . T he fi rs tw as Judg e M od es i t tw ho t es t i fi ed t hathe di d n otre m em ber i ss ui ng the spec i fi c w ar ra ntati ss ue, bu tthathe fol l ow s “ the sa m e proces s on every oc c a s i on. ” H e t e s t i f

i e d tha te ve r y t i m e he i s a s ke d t o i s s ue a s e a r c h w a r r a nt , he c om pa r e s the a f

f i da vi tw i th the s e a r c h w a r r a ntt o m a ke s ur e the de s c r i pt i ons of the pl a c e t o be s e a r c he d a nd the i t e m s t o be s e i z e d c ont a i ne d i n both the a f f i da vi ta nd se ar ch w ar ra ntm at ch w ord-for-w ord, si gn s the af fi davi t , and i ss ues the se ar ch w ar ra nt . T he G ov er nm enti nt rodu ce d i nt o evi dence W ys ocki ’ s a ff i davi tsi gn ed 4Q: Can you re c a ll e ve r s ignin ga

ny se arc h w arrants wh e re[you did not specifically

compare the de scription of the location, the p r e mi s e s to b e s e ar c h e d , a s w e lla s th e it e ms to b es e iz e d ]? A: No. I

follow the same procedure on every occa sion. Iconfirm that the placeto be sea

rche d is identical in both the aff idavit and the search wa rra nt itself. Iconfirm that the subje ct matter that they are loo kin gfo r i s id e nti c a l. I c on fi rm that th e prob a

blec a us e is identical, bec ause the y

always repe at the proba

ble ca use in the search wa rra nt that is in the af

fidavit . . . . So the search wa rra nt and the a ffidavit are identical except for the a uthorizi nglanguag e.

. . . Q: Judg e Modesitt, based on your signatureon the last pag e of the aff idavit for the se arc h war

rant, did you issue a sea

rch w arrant for a sea rch of the pre mises of 2026 Autumn L ane in Tallahassee , wh ic h is thea dd

re ss o n th e a ff

ida vit ? A: The re ason I

fee l absolutely

positive that Idid, Ifollow exactly the sameproc e duree ve ry

tim e . . . . Ihavene ve r s igne d a n a ff ida vit f o r a s e ar c hw ar

r antb utth at

I a l s o i s s u e d

c o nt e mp o r an e o u s l y, imm e diate ly , th e wa

rrant t o s e arc h th os e pre mis e s f or that prop e rt

y for the sa me re asons that are in the af fidavit. So, I ' ve done it every singletime that I ' ve ever done onewithout any doubt in my

mind. 6 a n d w itn e s s e d b y J u d g e M o d e s itt. J u d g e M o d e s itt te s tif ie d th a t h e w a s a b s o lu te ly s ur e tha the ha d i s s ue d a s e a r c h w a r r a ntw i th de s c r i pt i ve l a ngua ge i de nt i c a l t o the affi d av i t ’ s. T he G ove r nm e nt ’ s s e c ond w i tne s s w a s W y s oc ki w ho t e s t i f i e d tha the spec i fi ca l l y r ec al l ed ob t ai ni ng the se ar ch w ar ra ntfr om Judg e M od es i t t . H e f urt her t e s t i f i e d tha the r e a d the w a r r a ntt o P r a t tbe f or e c onduc t i ng the s e a r c h a nd tha the l e f ta c opy of

the w a r r a nton the ki t c he n c ount e rbe f or e a r r e s t i ng P r a t t . T he G ov er nm ent ’ s thi rd w i tness w as W ys ocki ’ s s up er vi sor, E dw ar d C oo k, w ho had been prese ntatthe se ar ch. C oo k t es t i fi ed t hathe heard W ys ocki re ad t he se ar ch w a r r a ntt o P r a t ta nd tha the s a w W y s oc ki pl a c e a c opy of the s e a r c h w a r r a nton theBlakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. C t. 2531, 159 L . Ed. 2d 403 (2004). 5 7 ki t c he n c ount e r . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, C ook c onc e de d tha the di d notknow f or s ur e tha tW y s oc ki r e a d the s e a r c h w a r r a ntr a the rtha n the a f f i da vi t . T he G o v e r n m e n t's f

o u r th w itn e s s w a s S p e c ia l A g e n t D o n a ld W illia m s o f A lc o h o l, T oba c c o, a nd F i r e a r m s , w ho t e s t i f i e d tha the w e ntt o the c l e r k' s of f i c e t o ge ta c opy o f th e f i r s tp a g e o f

th e s e a r c h w a r r a n to n l y t o f i n d th a ti tw a s mi s s i n g . W i l l i a ms w a s n o t p r e s e n t a t th e s e a r c h . P r a tt d id n o t te s tif y n o rd id h e c a ll a n y w itn e s s e s . B ased o n th i s t est i m o n y, th e affi d av i t , th e i n v en t o ry, an d th e p art i es’ a r g u m e n ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d P r a tt’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s , f in d in g th a t a se ar ch w ar ra ntw i th d es cr i pt i ve l angu age m i rr ori ng the af fi davi t ’ s e xi st ed and t hat th e w a r r a n t m e t th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t’s p a r tic u la r ity r e q u ir e m e n t. C . Se nt e nc i ng P r a t tpl e d gui l ty t o C ount s 1, 2, a nd 5 of the i ndi c t m e nt , r e s e r vi ng hi s r i ght t o a ppe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s . H e w e ntt o tr i a l on th e o th e rc o u n ts , a n d w a s f o u n d g u ilty o f

a le s s e rin c lu d e d o f

f e n s e o f s im p le po ss es si on w i th res pectt o C ou nt3, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 44 . H e w as a c q u itte d o n C o u n t 4 . A tth e p l ea co l l o q u y, P rat tfu l l y p reserv ed h i s B o o ker ( the n B la ke ly ) c la im 5 by f i l i ng a w r i tt e n c ha l l e nge t o the m a nda t or y us e of the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng8

G ui de l i ne s ( the “ G ui de l i ne s ” ) a nd by r e ne w i ng hi s obj e c t i on a tthe s e nt e nc i ng hear i ng . D uri ng the se nt enci ng hear i ng , w hi ch occurre d w hi l e the S up re m e C ou rt w a s c ons i de r i ng B oo ke r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e p r e s c ie n tly s ta te d th a t h e w o u ld i m po se the sa m e s ent ence i f the G ui del i nes w er e a dv i sory . P ra t tw as then s e nt e nc e d t o a pr i s on t e r m of 188 m onths –188 m onths on C ount s 1 a nd 2, 36 m o n th s o n C o u n t 3 a n d 1 2 0 m o n th s o n C o u n t 5 , a ll ru n n in g c o n c u r r e n tly . II . S tan d ard of R evi ew I n r e v i e wi n g a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e , we r e v ie w f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re r r o ra n d th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e la w to th o s e f

a c ts d e n o v o . U

ni t ed St at es v. Ji m i nez , 22 4 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 47 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). W e r evi ew P ra t t ’ s properl y pre se rved cl ai m of B o o ker e r r o rd e n o v o a n d w ill n o t r e v e r s e u n le s s th e e r r o rw a s h a r m f u l. S e e U

n ite d S ta te s v . M

a th e n ia , 409 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 91 -92 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). I I I . D i s c u s s i on W e f irst d iscu ss w h eth er th e F o u rth A m en d m en t p ro h ib it s th e G o v er n m en t’ s us e of othe re vi de nc e t o pr ove a m i s s i ng s e a r c h w a r r a nt ’ s e xi s t e nc e a nd de s c r i pt i ve la n g u a g e a t a s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in g , a n d w h e th e r , a s P r a tt a s s e r ts , G roh v. R am i rez , 5 4 0 U .S . 5 5 1 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 1 2 8 4 , 1 5 7 L . E d . 2 d 1 0 6 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , s u p p o r ts th is v ie w . N ext , w e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s thata s ea rc h w ar ra ntexi st ed“Theprovisions that all releva nt evidenceis admissibl e, with ce rtain exceptions, and 6 that evidenc e which is not re levant is not admissible are a presupposition involved in the very conception of a rational sy stem of evidenc e. The y constitute the foundation upon which the str uc ture of a dmi ssi on

and e xclu sio n re sts .”F e d. R. Evid . 4 02 a dv iso ry c omm itt e e ’s no te (citations and quotations omitted). 9 an d th at th e w ar ra n t’ s d es cr ip ti v e lan g u ag e m irro re d th e s u p p o rtin g af fid av it ’s de s c r i pt i ve l a ngua ge ; a nd w e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l e ga l c onc l us i on tha tthe se ar ch m et th e F o u rth A m en d m en t’ s r eq u irem en ts. F in ally, w e d iscu ss P ra tt ’s B oo ke re r r o rc l a i m. A . M o ti o n to S u p p ress 1 . The Fo ur t h A m e ndm e nt a nd G r oh P r a t tpoi nt s t o the F our th A m e ndm e nta s pr ovi di ng a n e xc e pt i on t o the g e n e r a l a x io m th a t a ll r e le v a n t e v id e n c e is a d m is s ib le . H e a r g u e s th a t th e F o u r th 6 A m endm entre qu i re s the excl usi on of al l evi dence, exce ptthe se ar ch w ar ra nti t se l f, r e l e va ntt o the de t e r m i na t i on of a s e a r c h w a r r a nt ’ s e xi s t e nc e a nd de s c r i pt i ve l angu age. T he es se nce of hi s a rgum enti s thata m i ss i ng w ar ra ntcr ea t es an i r r e but t a bl e pr e s um pt i on tha tno w a r r a nte ve re xi s t e d or , a l t e r na t i ve l y , tha tthe m i ssi n g w arran t ’ s d escri p t i v e l an g u ag e l ack ed p art i cu l ari ty. P rat tci t es G r oh f

orthe pr opos i t i on tha ta s e a r c h w a r r a nt ’ s de s c r i pt i ve l a ngua ge i s s o c r i t i c a l t o a F our th A m e ndm e nti nqui r y tha ti tc a n onl y be pr ove n byBivens v . Six Unknown Named A gents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 4 03 U. S. 3 88 , 9 1 S. 7 Ct. 1999, 29 L . Ed. 2d 619 (1971). Searc h war

rants ca n incorporate by

ref erence thewords of suppor ting doc uments if the 8 documents are attac hed to the wa rra nt. See Groh , 540 U.S. at 560, 124 S. Ct . at 1291. The war rant in Groh did not incorporatethe af fidavit, however. Id. at 554-55, 124 S. Ct. at 1288. 10 i ntr oduc i ng the w a r r a nti t s e l f . I n G r oh , Jose ph R am i re z broug hta B i v e ns a c t i on 7 a ga i ns tJ e f

f G r oh, a S pe c i a l A ge ntf orthe B ur e a u of

A l c ohol , T oba c c o, a nd F i r e a r m s ( A T F ) f

orvi ol a t i ng R a m i r e z ’ s F our th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w he n G r oh c onduc t e d a s e a r c h of

R a m i r e z ’ s hom e pur s ua ntt o a s e a r c h w a r r a ntde s c r i bi ng the pe r s on a nd i t e m s t o be s e i z e d a s R a m i r e z ’ s “ tw o- s t or y bl ue hous e r a the rtha n the al l eged st ockp i l e of f

i re ar m s. ” I

d . a t 5 5 4 , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 1 2 8 7 - 8 8 . T h e m a g is tr a te is s u e d th e w a r r a n t b a s e d u p o n a d e ta ile d a f f id a v it th a t s h o w e d p r o b a b le c a u s e . I d. U nl i ke the s e a r c h w a r r a nt , the a f f i da vi tde s c r i be d a de qua t e l y a nd pa r t i c ul a r l y the s to c k p ile o f

f ir e a r m s th a t w e r e to b e s e iz e d . I d . at55 4, 12 4 S . C t . at12 88 . In ho l di ng thatthe w ar ra ntw as “ pl ai nl y i nv al i d, ” the G r oh C our ts t a t e d tha tthe s u p p o r tin g a f

f id a v it’s d e s c r ip tiv e la n g u a g e “d o e s n o t s a v e th e w a r r a n t f r o m its f a c i a l i nva l i di ty . T he F our th A m e ndm e ntby i t s t e r m s r e qui r e s pa r t i c ul a r i ty i n the w ar ra nt , no ti n t he supp ort i ng do cum ent s. ” I d . a t557, 124 S . C t . a t1289 (e m ph as i s r em ov ed). G i ven t hi s det er m i nat i on , w e a gree w i th P ra t t ’ s pre m i se that the c ont e nt s of

the s e a r c h w a r r a nti t s e l f , notthe c ont e nt s of

the s uppor t i ng d o c u m e n ts , a r e s c ru tin iz e d u n d e rth e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t’s p a r tic u la r ity

811

r e qui r e m e nt . W e a l s o a gr e e w i th P r a t ttha ta s uppor t i ng a f f i da vi t , no m a t t e rhow p e r f e c t, c a n n o t s a v e a f

a c ia lly d e f

e c tiv e w a r r a n t. W h e r e w e p a r t w a y s w ith P r a tt is w he the rthe s e pr e m i s e s l e a d t o the c onc l us i on tha ta s uppor t i ng a f f i da vi t , ora ny o th er re lev an t ev id en ce , can n o t b e u se d to p ro v e a m issin g se ar ch w ar ra n t’ s ex i st en ce o r co n t en t s. G r oh i s di s t i ngui s ha bl e f r om thi s c a s e . I n G r oh , the se ar ch w ar ra ntw as p r o d u c e d a t tr ia l a n d its d e s c r ip tiv e la n g u a g e w a s k n o w n to a c e r ta in ty . I d. a t558, 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 1 2 9 0 . T h e la n g u a g e o f th e w a r r a n t f

a ile d to m e e t th e p a r tic u la r ity r e qui r e m e ntof

the F our th A m e ndm e nt . I n the pr e s e ntc a s e , the pa r t i e s di s put e the w a r r a n t’s e x is te n c e a n d its d e s c r ip tiv e la n g u a g e . Y e t, th e r e is o th e re v id e n c e to e s t a bl i s h the c ont e nt s of the w a r r a nt , s uppor t i ng pa r t i c ul a r i ty . T he G ove r nm e nt d o es n o tn eed t o p ro v e t h e w arran t ’ s ex i st en ce w i th cert ai n ty, b u trat h er b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . See U

ni t ed St at es v. M

at l ock , 415 U . S . 164, 177 n. 14 , 94 S . C t . 98 8, 99 6 n . 14 , 39 L . E d. 2d 24 2 (19 74 ). W e de c l i ne t o a c c e ptP r a t t ’ s s ugge s t i on tha tthe a bs e nc e of a s e a r c h w a r r a nt a ta s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng c r e a t e s a pr e s um pt i on tha tthe r e i s a F our th A m e ndm e nt vi ol a t i on. W e f

i nd tha t , w he n a w a r r a nti s noti n e vi de nc e a ta s uppr e s s i on he a r i ng, a prose cut or m ustprov e, by a pre po nd er ance of t he evi dence, the m i ss i ng se ar ch w arran t ’ s ex a c t l a ngua ge de s c r i bi ng the pl a c e t o be s e a r c he d a nd the pe r s ons orThe Government may still prove that the war

rantless sea

rch w ould fall within one of 9 the “c are fully

define d classes of

case s” that do not violate the F ourth Amendment. See Groh , 540 U.S. at 560, 124 S. Ct . at 1291. Pratt did not alleg e any

bad faith on the part of the of fice rs ef fec tuating thesearch nor 10 on the par t of the Gove rnment. Therefore, welimitour holdingto situations notinvolving bad faith. 12 ite m s to b e s e iz e d . C

f . U n i t ed S ta t es v. L a m b ert , 8 8 7 F .2 d 1 5 6 8 , 1 5 7 1 - 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( “O f

c o u r s e , th e a b s e n c e f

r o m th e c o u r t r e c o r d s o f a n a f f id a v it const i tut es som e e vi dence thaton e di d n otexi st. . . . H ow ever , ot her e vi dence m ay b e p r e s e n te d to e s ta b lis h th e f a c t th a t a n a f

f id a v it w a s p r e s e n te d , a s w e ll a s its c ont e nt s . ” ) . G e ne r a l a s s e r t i ons tha ta w a r r a ntw a s pa r t i c ul a rorva gue r e c ol l e c t i ons of a w a r r a nt ’ s de s c r i pt i ve l a ngua ge c a nnots a t i s f y thi s bur de n. T h e G o v er n m en t i n so m e c as es m ay n o t b e a b le to p ro v e a se ar ch w ar ra n t’ s exi st ence or i t s e xactdesc ri pt i ve l angu age. In t ho se ca se s, the se ar ch i s tre at ed as i f i tw e r e w a r r a nt l e s s a nd the e vi de nc e m a y be s uppr e s s e d. B uti n c a s e s l i ke the 9 pr e s e ntone , w he r e a m pl e e vi de nc e i s pr oduc e d, t o pr ohi bi tthe G ove r nm e ntf r om pres ent i ng thatevi dence w ou l d b e unt enabl e. W e hol d t hatot her e vi dence of a s e a r c h w a r r a nt ’ s e xi s t e nc e a nd de s c r i pt i ve l a ngua ge m a y be us e d i n a s uppr e s s i on h e a r in g to p r o v e th a t a s e a r c h w a s c o n d u c te d w ith a w a r r a n t th a t p a r tic u la r ly desc ri bed t he pl ac e t o b e s ea rc hed and the pers on s or i t em s t o b e s ei ze d. W e c an 10 n o w tu r n to a n e v a lu a tio n o f th a t o th e re v id e n c e to d e te r m in e w h e th e rit is su ffi ci en tt o su p p o rtth e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s co n cl u si o n s.13

2. R e vi e w of

t h e d i s t r i c t c ou r t ’ s f

i n d i n gs W e w i l l ac ce ptthe di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual det er m i nat i on s unl es s they a re c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e tw o f a c tu a l f in d in g s th a t P r a tt c ha l l e nge s : ( 1) a s e a r c h w a r r a nte xi s t e d a nd ( 2) the s e a r c h w a r r a nt ’ s de s c r i pt i on of the i t e m s t o be s e a r c he d a nd s e i z e d w e r e e xa c t l y the s a m e a s the s uppor t i ng a f f id a v it. T he G ove r nm e ntpr e s e nt e d a m pl e e vi de nc e of the w a r r a nt ’ s e xi s t e nc e a nd e xa c tc ont e nt s w i th t e s t i m ony f r om the of

f i c e rw ho dr a f

t e d the w a r r a nt , the m a g is tr a te w h o is s u e d th e w a r r a n t, a n d th e a f f id a v it th a t s u p p o r te d th e w a r r a n t. T he i ss ui ng j ud ge re peat edl y a nd un w aver i ng l y t es t i fi ed t hathe al w ay s m akes sure the w a r r a ntm a t c he s the a f f i da vi ti n i t s de s c r i pt i on of the pl a c e t o be s e a r c he d a nd the i t e m s t o be s e i z e d. H e f ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha the w a s s ur e tha the i s s ue d a w a r r a nt i n P r a t t ’ s c a s e ba s e d on hi s s i gna tur e a nd hi s c ons i s t e ntpr a c t i c e . T hi s t e s t i m ony w a s ne i the rc ha l l e nge d norc ontr a di c t e d by a ny e vi de nc e s ubm i t t e d by P r a t t . T he d i stri ctco u rt ’ s factu al fi n d i n g s are, th erefo re, n o tcl earl y erro n eo u s. F i na l l y , w e tur n t o w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n f i ndi ng tha tthe m i s s i ng s e a r c h w a r r a n t s a tis f

ie d th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t’s p a r tic u la r ity r e q u ir e m e n t. W e ne e d notr e - a na l y z e the w a r r a nt ’ s de s c r i pt i ve l a ngua ge s i nc e P r a t tc onc e de s tha tthe w ar ra n t’ s d es cr ip ti v e lan g u ag e w o u ld b e p ar ti cu lar if it m irro re d th e a ff id av it ’sThe a ffidavit’s de scriptive languag e appe ars in n.1 of this opinion. 11 14 de s c r i pt i ve l a ngua ge . T ha ts a i d, w e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our ta nd f i nd tha tthe 11 w a r r a nt ’ s de s c r i pt i ve l a ngua ge pa r t i c ul a r l y de s c r i be s the pl a c e t o be s e a r c he d a nd the pers on or t hi ng s t o b e s ei ze d. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al o f P rat t ’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress. B. Se nt e nc i ng S t atu t o ry B oo ke re r r oroc c ur s w he n the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e s a de f e nda nt u n d e ra m a n d a to r y g u id e lin e s s c h e m e . M a th e n ia , 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 1 . P r a tt a s s e r ts tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i t t e d B oo ke rst atut ory e rr or because of i t s m andat ory us e of the G ui de l i ne s t o s e nt e nc e hi m . T he G ove r nm e ntc onc e de s thi s e r r or , but a r g u e s th a t th e e r r o rw a s h a r m le s s n o n e th e le s s . I n s ta tu to r y e r r o rc a s e s , th e e r r o ris h a r m le s s “if , v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in thei r e nt i re ty, a c ou rtdet er m i nes thatthe er ror di d n otaf fe ctthe se nt ence , or had bu tvery sl i gh tef

fe ct . ” I d. at1 2 9 2 (i n t ern al m ark s an d q u o t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). T h ati s,

“ [i ] f one can s ay w i th fai r a ss urance thatthe se nt ence w as no tsubst ant i al l y s w ay ed by the er ror, the se nt ence i s due t o b e a ff i rm ed even t ho ug h t here w as er ror. ” I d. ( i nt e r na l m a r ks a nd quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . W he r e the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e s tha tthe s e n te n c e w o u ld b e th e s a m e u n d e ra d v is o r y g u id e lin e s , a n y B o o k e re r r o ris h a r m le s s . I

d.Be foremakingthis statement, the district court also stated, 12 L e t mete ll you

these ntenc e I ’m

g oin gto i mpo seand

why , a nd then I ’l l formally impose the sentenc e. Thesentenc e I ’m g oing to impose is 188 months. That’s the low end of the ra ng e. Theg overnme nt is corre ct that Mr. Pratt has a very

bad re cord of

prior drugconvictions. That a pp ro priate ly

is t ake n into a c c ount i n s e ntenc ing , a nd a pp ro priate ly

c a lls for a substantial sentence . The guidelines take into ac count that bad rec ord. The bad rec ord is what make s him a career offe nder. The guidelines rang e for

this offense, w ithout the care er of fender provision, would be I

believe 110 to 137 months. The low e nd of the ra ng e with a career offe nder provision is 188 m onths. The criminal record does call for a substantial sentenc e. A hundred and e ighty-eight months i s a substantial sentenc e. 15 H e r e , the di s tr i c tj udge e xpl i c i t l y s t a t e d, “ F i na l l y , I s houl d not e tha t , i f the S upr e m e C our thol ds i n B o o ker tha tthe G ui de l i ne s c a nnotc ons t i tut i ona l l y be m a de bi ndi ng, the n i ti s m y vi e w tha tthe y none the l e s s c a n a nd s houl d be c o n s id e r e d b y a d is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e in d e c id in g w h e r e to p la c e a s e n te n c e w ith in th e e n tir e s ta tu to r y r a n g e . I w o u ld d o th a t h e r e , a n d u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s w o u ld im p o s e th is s a m e s e n te n c e .” 12 P r a t ta r gue s , notw i ths t a ndi ng the j udge ’ s s t a t e m e nt s , tha tthe j udge di d not t ake i nt o acc ou ntal l of t he fa ct ors thathe coul d h ave beca use the G ui del i nes w er e m a nda t or y . T hi s a r gum e nti s unpe r s ua s i ve . B e c a us e the j udge w oul d i m pos e the s a m e s e n te n c e u n d e ra n a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s s y s te m , w e c a n s a y “w ith f a ir as sura nce . . . thatthe [s ent ence ] w as no tsubst ant i al l y s w ay ed by t he er ror. ” I d. at 12 92 . A cc ordi ng l y, the B oo ke rstatu to ry er ro r w as h ar m less , an d w e a ff irm P ra tt ’s se nt ence .16 I V . C on c l u s i on We AF F I R M t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f P r a t t ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s a n d we A F F IR M P ra t t ’ s 188 -m on th sent ence . AF F I RME D.