A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l y t o honorthe par t i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he cour tgener al l y di s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; never thel es s , an or derand j udgm entm ay be ci t ed undert he t er m s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay31,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 5146 v . N. D. Ok l a h o ma BR I AN S CO T T P E RR Y,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR - 1 8 9 - 0 0 1 - T CK )

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. A ppel l antB r i an Perr y w as char ged i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor t he N or t her n D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma w i th pos s es s i on of a fi r ear m aft erpr i or convi ct i on of a fel ony , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) ; pos s es s i on w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e met hamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ; and pos s es s i on of a fi r ear m i n fur ther ance of a drug- tr affi cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of-2-

18 U . S. C . § 924 ( c) ( 1) ( A ) . B efor e tr i al he s oughtt o s uppr es s evi dence , i ncl udi ng a handgun, baggi es cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne, a s poon w i th m ethamphet ami ne r es i due, and drug par apher nal i a, gather ed dur i ng a s ear ch of hi s r es i dence . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on, hol di ng thatt he affi davi tfort he s ear ch w arr ant e sta b lish e d p ro b a b le c a u se a n d , alte rn a tiv e ly , ev e n ifth e re w e re d e ficie n c ies in t he affi dav i t , the g oo d-fai th ex cepti on t o the exclusi on aryrul e w as sat i sfi ed, so t h a tth e e v i d e n c e s h o u l d n o tb e s u p p r e s s e d . M r . P e rr y w a s t h e n c o n v i c t e d b y a ju ry o n a ll th re e c o u n ts . H e w a s s e n te n c e d to 1 5 0 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. Mr . P e r r y n o w a p p e a l s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o fh i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I . BA CKGROUND T u lsa p o li ce o fficers co n d u cted a se arc h o f M r. P erry ’s ho m e u n d er a w arr antbas ed on an a ffi davi tby O ffi cerA nthony Fi r s t . T he affi davi tcont ai ned t he fol l ow i ng al l egati ons : ( 1) O ffi cerFi r s thad bee n a Tul s a pol i ce offi cerfor fi ve y ear s and had va r i ous for m al and i nfor m al tr ai ni ng i n the “r ecogni t i on of contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance s ” and on the “r ecogni t i on of and e nfor cement ag ains t cl an d esti n e lab s . . . . ” R . V o l. 1 D o c. 14 E x . A at 1. (2) W ith in 7 2 h o u rs b e fo r e th e a ffi d a v i twa s fi l e d , Offi c e rF i r s th a d r e c e i v e d i n fo r ma t i o n fr o m a confi dent i al i nfor m ant( C I ) thatM r . Perr y w as s el l i ng m ethamphet ami ne. “The C I t ol d [O ffi cerFi r s t ] thatthey have pur chas ed quanti t i es of m ar ij uana fr om Br i a n i n th e p a s ta ts e v e r a l d i ffe r e n tl o c a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g Br i a n ’ s h o u s e a t7 1 1 2 E.-3-

J as perSt . T he C I w enton t o s t at e thateac h t i m e they have pl ace d or der s for m ethamphet ami ne, B r i an has been a bl e t o pr ovi de i t . ” Id . ( 3) A l s o w i thi n 72 hour s of the affi davi t , O ffi cerFi r s tm etw i th the C I and arr anged acontr ol l ed buy t ar get i ng M r . Perr y . T he C I cont act ed M r . Perr y and arr anged t o pur chas e a quant i t y of m ethamphet ami ne fr om hi m . O ffi cerFi r s ts ear ched the C I ’ s per s on, fin d in g n o d ru g s o r m o n e y o n h im , p ro v id e d h im w ith a q u a n tity o fm o n e y w ith w h ich to m ak e the b u y , an d fo ll o w ed h im to 7 1 1 2 E . Jasp er S t. (4) O fficers m a in ta in e d s u rv e illa n c e o n th e re s id e n c e a s th e C I a rr iv e d , e n te re d , a n d d e p a rt e d . N o ot herpeopl e ent er ed w hi l e the C I w as i ns i de. W hen the C I exi t ed, O ffi cer Fi r s t fol l ow ed hi m t o a l ocati on w her e the C I gave hi m a quanti t y of m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d to ld h im th a t it h a d b e e n o b ta in e d fro m M r. P e rr y . A n o ther se arc h o f th e C I rev ea led th at he h ad n o o ther d rug s o n h im . (5) A sea rch o f p o li ce rec o rds re v ea led th at M r. P erry “h as a n ex tens ive c ri m inal h ist o ry i ncl udi ng fourpr evi ous cont act s fori l l egal dr ugs . ” Id . a t2 . ( 6 ) Du r i n g t wo s epar at e obs er vat i on per i ods , offi cer s obs er ved a “ ver y hi gh vol um e” of“footand v e h ic le , s h o rtte rm tr a ffic ” a t M r. P e rr y ’s h o m e . Id . M r . Perr y fi l ed a w r i t t en mot i on t o s uppr es s t he evi dence gather ed dur i ng the s ea rch o f h is r esid en ce , arg u ing that the a ffidav itw as in su ffici en t t o su p p o rt p r o b a b l e c a u s e fo rth e s e a r c h a n d t h a tt h e g o o d - fa i th e x c e p t i o n d i d n o ta p p l y . He cont ended thatthe offi cer s empl oy ed i nadequa t e pr eca ut i ons fort he contr ol l ed b u y , p o in tin g o u t th a t th e a ffid a v it fa iled to in d ica te w h e th e r th e C I’s c a r, in-4-

w hi ch he dr ove hi m s el f t o and fr om M r . Perr y ’ s r es i dence forthe buy , had bee n se a rc h e d b y th e o ffice rs. A t th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g h e a rg u e d th a t p ro b a b le caus e and good fai th w er e l acki ng al s o beca us e the affi davi t( 1) di d notpr ovi de t he ident i t y or purpo se of an y of the short -t erm vis i t ors t o M r. P err y ’s ho use obs er ved by the offi cer s and ( 2) pr ovi ded no bas i s fort he as s er t i on that m ethamphet ami ne w as the s ubs t ance r etur ned t o O ffi cerFi r s taft ert he contr ol l ed b u y. O ffi cerFi r s t ’ s t es t i m ony att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng cl ar i fi ed s ever al s t at ement s i n t he affi davi t . H e t es t i fi ed thathi s par t nerhad s ear ched the C I ’ s car bot h befor e and a ft erthe contr ol l ed buy , and thatom i s s i on of thati nfor m at i on fr om the w arr antaffi davi thad bee n an over s i ght . H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatt he s t at ementi n t he affi davi tthatthe C I gave hi m a quanti t y of “met hamphet ami ne” aft erthe contr ol l ed buy w as bas ed on a fi el d t es tof the s ubs t ance , beca us e i tw as his pract i ce al w ay s t o fiel d tes tsubst ances u nd er tho se ci rcum st ances. O n a p p e a l M r. P e rry c o n tin u e s to c h a llen g e th e su fficie n c y o fth e a ffid a v it a n d th e a p p lica b ili ty o fth e g o o d -fa ith e x c e p tio n . H e d o e s n o t p u rsu e h is ar gum entbel ow bas ed on the fa i l ur e t o s ear ch the C I ’ s vehi cl e. H e foc us es on th e a b se n c e o fa n y m e n tio n o fth e field tes t in th e a ffid a v it an d th e fa ilu re to pr ovi de dat es forthe s ur vei l l ance of s hor t - t er m vi s i t or s atM r . Perr y ’ s hous e.-5-

I I . DI S CU S S I ON Wh e n we r e v i e w a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n a mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , we acc eptthe fa ctual fi ndi ngs unl es s t hey ar e cl ear l y err oneous , and r evi ew q u e s tio n s o fla w d e n o v o . Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al es , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 8 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) . W hetherthe w arr antw as s uppor t ed by pr obabl e ca us e and w hether t he good- fai th exce pt i on of Uni t ed Stat es v. Leon , 468 U . S. 897 ( 1984) , appl i es a re b o th q u e s tio n s o fla w . G onz al es , 399 F. 3d at1228. A ppel l at e cour t s have d isc re tio n to a d d re ss p ro b a b le c a u se o r to p ro c e e d d ire c tlyto th e g o o d -fa ith a n a lysis . Id . H er e, the pr obabl e- caus e det er m i nat i on i s a cl os e one, butt he ques t i on of good fa i th i s cl ear . T her efor e, w e w i l l pr ocee d di r ect l y t o the goodfa i t h i n q u i r y. Leon a n n o u n c e d a g o o d -fa ith e x c e p tio n u n d e r w h ich e v id e n c e p ro c u re d in vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endmentw oul d nonethel es s be admi s s i bl e attr i al . 468 U . S. at913. I tdecl ar ed thatthe exc l us i on of “r el i abl e phy s i cal evi dence s ei zed by offi cer s r eas onabl y r el y i ng on a w arr anti s s ued by a det ache d and neutr al m agi s tr at e, ” i d. a t 9 1 3 , d id n o t se rv e th e p rim a ry p u rp o se o fth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t e x c lu s io n a ry ru le

— d e te rr e n c e o fp o lic e m is c o n d u c t, s ee i d. at913- 2 3 ; s ee als o G onz al es , 399 F. 3d at1228- 29. T he C our tnot ed, how ever , four s i t uat i ons i n w hi ch defer ence t o the magi s tr at e’ s pr obabl e- caus e det er m i nat i on w oul d nots uffi ce t o br i ng an offi cer ’ s exec ut i on of the w arr antw i thi n the goodfai t h exce pt i on:-6-

[ 1 ] S u p p re ss io n . . . rem a in s a n a p p ro p ria te r e m e d y ifth e m a g istra te orj udge i n i s s ui ng a w arr antw as m i s l ed by i nfor m at i on i n an affi davi tthatthe affi antknew w as fal s e orw oul d have know n w as fal s e exc eptforhi s r eckl es s di s r egar d of the tr uth. [2] T he exc ept i on w e r ecogni ze t oday w i l l al s o notappl y i n cas es w her e the i s s ui ng m agi s tr at e w hol l y abandone d hi s j udi ci al r ol e . . . . [3] N orw oul d an offi cerm ani fes tobj ecti ve good fa i th i n r el y i ng on a w arr antbas ed on an affi davi ts o l acki ng i n i ndi ci a of pr obabl e ca us e as t o r ender o ffi c i a l b e l i e fi n i t s e x i s t e n c e e n t i r e l y u n r e a s o n a b l e . . . . [ 4 ] F i n a l l y,

. . . a w arr antm ay be s o fac i al l y defi ci ent. . . thatthe exe cut i ng offi cer s cannotr eas onabl y pr es um e i tt o be val i d. Leon , 468 U . S. at923 ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . O n appea l M r . Perr y r el i es on onl y t he thi r d i ns t ance i n w hi ch the good- fai th exce pt i on w oul d notappl y , as s er t i ng t hat“[t ] he affi davi tati s s ue w as s o devoi d of fa ctual su p p o rtthat n o rea so n ab lyw ell tr aine d o fficer co u ld h av e re li ed o n it . ” A p ltB r. at11. W e di s agr ee. ( I n hi s w r i t t en mot i on t o s uppr es s , M r . Perr y cl ai m ed that th e m a g istra te h a d w h o llya b a n d o n e d h is ju d icia l ro le in a p p ro v in g th is w a rra n t, b u t h e d o e s n o t r e n e w th a t a rg u m e n t in h is b ri e f s to th is c o u rt .)

“ W h ile o ffice rs a re g e n e ra llye n tit led to re ly o n th e m a g istra te’ s ju d g m e n t, they are also req u ir ed to ex erc ise th eir ow n p rofessio n al j u d g m en t. . . . [W ]e d e ter m in e g o o d fa ith in th is c o n tex t b y c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r a re a so n a b ly w e ll tr ai ned offi cerw oul d have know n thatt he s ear ch w as i l l egal des pi t e the m agi s tr at e’ s author i zati on. ” G onz al es , 399 F. 3d at1230 ( i nt er nal ci t at i on and q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). In o u r view , O fficer F ir st’ s affid av itm ee ts th is st an d ard . In p arti cu lar, M r . Perr y ’ s s ol e cha l l enge t o t he contr ol l ed buy ( w hi ch, i f pr oper l y per for m ed,-7-

w oul d i t s el f es t abl i s h the C I ’ s cr edi bi l i t y and s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e, s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. A r t ez , 389 F. 3d 1106, 1111- 12 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ) i s thatthe affi davi tdoes notr eci t e thata fi el d t es tw as conduct ed t o es t abl i s h the i dent i t y of t he s ubs t ance . B utt he ver y fac tthatthe C I ent er ed M r . Perr y ’ s hous e w i th m oney and l eftw i th a quanti t y of a s ubs t ance thata tr ai ned offi certhoughtt o be m ethamphet ami ne pr ovi des s i gni fi cantcorr obor at i on t o the C I ’ s as s er t i on thathe had bee n pur chas i ng m ethamphet ami ne fr om M r . Perr y . Sl oppi nes s i n w r i t i ng, a n d a p p r o v i n g , a ffi d a v i t s fo rw a rr a n t s i s a n u n fo r tu n a t e , a n d s o m e t i m e s c o s t l y, err or. B ut a w el l -trai ned offi cer w ho kn ew fact s est abli shi ng probab l e cause coul d r eas onabl y erri n r el y i ng on appr oval of a w arr antbas ed on an a ffi davi tthat in a d v e rte n tlyo m itt e d so m e o fth o se fa c ts. O ffice rs n e e d to b e “ re a so n a b ly w e ll tr a in e d ,” b u t w e c a n n o t e x p e c t th e m to p a rs e la n g u a g e a s a s k ille d la w y e r c o u ld . See Uni t ed Stat es v. C or ral - C or ral , 899 F. 2d 927, 939 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( “[T] he know l edge a nd under s t andi ng of l aw enfor cementoffi cer s and thei rappr eci at i on fo r c o n stitu tio n a l in trica c ies a re n o t to b e ju d g e d b y th e sta n d a rd s a p p lica b le to law y ers.” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)) . W e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e a ffid a v it w a s “ so lac k in g in in d icia o fp ro b a b le c a u se a s to re n d e r o fficia l b e liefin its exi s t ence ent i r el y unr eas onabl e. ” Leon , 468 U . S. at923 ( i nt er nal quot at i on m arks o m itted); s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. D anhauer , 2 2 9 F . 3 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); Un itedS ta tes v . M c Kn e e ly , 6 F. 3d 1447, 1454 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( “I ti s onl y w hen a n o ffice r’s re lian c e w a s w h o llyu n w a rra n ted th a t g o o d fa ith is a b se n t.” (e m p h a sis-8-

and i nt er nal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e affi r m the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s de term ination u n d er Leon thatM r . Perr y ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s be deni ed. I I I . CO NC L US I ON Forthe r eas ons s t at ed above , w e A FFIRM t he j udgm entof the di s tr i ct c o u rt. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge