FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 17, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1028 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00027 -CR- A- S UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, P laintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us REGGIE W ILSON W HIDDON, D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ A ppe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 17, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BI N A a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Re ggi e W ils on Whid don ap pe al s his co nvi ct ion fo r be ing a fe lon in p oss es sio n of a fir earm , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Whidd on argues that2

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by de ny ing his m oti on t o su ppr es s f ir earm s a nd
m etha m phe ta m ine dis co ve re d a t hi s r es ide nc e dur ing ase ar chpur suant t o aw ar rant. Whid don ar gues the e vid en ce sho uld ha ve be ensup pr es se d be ca use ( 1) the inform ation in th e af

fidavit sub m i t t ed in supp ort of the searc h war rant w as insufficient to establis h probable cause, and (2) the officer s who conducted the search of his hou se we re r equired to obtain another warrant before they opened a sealed bag (containing m etham

phetam ine) found in an autom obile at his residence. W e re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at a n af fi da vit co nta ins pr oba

ble cause de novo and th e district court’ s finding s of fact for clear er ror. U nited States
v. Jim ine z, 224 F
. 3d 1 243, 124 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0)
. W e giv e due de fe re nc e to the inf er en ce s th e dis tr ic t c ourt and l awe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce rs dr awf

ro m the f ac ts. I d. W e re vie w f

or c le ar er ro r a dis tr ic t co urt’ s f

ind ing s of

f ac t onam oti on t o su

ppr es s,
an d r ev ie w de nov o th e ap pli ca tio n of law to the f

ac ts. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ja ck son, 120 F.3 d 1 22 6, 1 22 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7)
. A ft er tho ro ugh re vie w of

the r ec or d a nd c ar ef

ul c onsi de ra tio n of

the pa rt ie s’ b r i e f s , w e a f f i rm. The relevant facts are straightforwar d. On Fe bruary 25, 2004, Whidd on was in di ct edforbe in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at i o n o f 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 1), and poss ession o f m etham phetam ine, in violation of 21 U. S. C.3

§ 844 (Count 2). Th e i n d i ct m ent stem m ed from

an investigatio n in Abbeville, A la ba m a, co nc erni ng s ev er al a nony m ous “ Cr im e St oppe r” ti ps, r ec ei ve d by the Abbeville Police Departm ent (“ AP D” ), about Whidd on. The tips indicated there w as
a str ong ch em ic al sm el l c om ing fr om Whid don’ s busi ne ss ( a m ec ha nic sho p) a nd a lot of tr af fi c goi ng i n to a nd o ut o f the bus ine ss. A s a r es ul t of the ti ps, a nd discuss ions with a confidential inform ant (“ CI”) who k new W hidd on and indi cated he could “ get in with him

and find out what his operation was, ” the A PD and Hendry CountySherif

f’ s Of fice ( “ HCS O” ) conducted a successful controlled bu y by the CI at Whid don’ s pl ace of

bus ine ss. T he re af

te r, of fi ce rs obt ai ne d ase ar chw ar rant f or Whi dd on ’s hom e, a t 51 1 C ounty Ro ad 79, a nd h is b usi ne ss, P er fo rm an ce A uto . D ur ing the e xe cu tio n of

the se ar chw ar

rant at the r es ide nc e, the of fi ce rs f ound e igh t fi re ar m s i n t h e b e d r o o m , a n dm et h amp h et amin e i n a c l o s ed b ag i n Whi d d en ’s
au to m ob il e. Pr ior to tr ia l, Whid don fi le d am oti on t o su ppr es s th e ev ide nc e fo und dur ing the e xe cu tio n of

the se ar chw ar

rant f or his hous e, a rg uin g th at

pr oba ble c au se did

not
ex ist to j ust if y the w ar rant, a nd tha t the se ar chw ar rant a ff ida vit c ont ai ne d m at er ia lly fa lse sta te m en ts. Whid don fu rthe r cl ai m ed tha t the w ar

rant w as va gue an d fa ile d to provide fa cts as to the CI’ s reliability
. Finally , W hidd on m aintained that the officers
ne ed eda se pa rat e warra nt to sea rch th e v eh ic le an d t he sea le d b ag fou nd th erei n.4

Insup port of

his m oti on, Whid don subm itt ed the searc h w ar

rant f or his residence and the corr espond ing affidavit. T he searc h warrant stated that the police had probable cause to believe that Whiddon and Jerry Michael Mac on po ssessed
cr y sta l m etha m

phe ta m ine an d oth er ill eg al co ntr ab an d at Whid don’ s r es ide nc e. T he
se ar chw ar

rant g av e the of

fi ce rs pe rm iss ion to se ar ch the re sid en ce an d al l bu ild ing s and vehicles located on the property for cr y stal m etham

phetam ine and other illegal contraband. T he warrant w as issued based on the aff idavit of Jason Hughes, an APD
na rc oti cs inv es tig at or

w ho s ta te d th at he re ce ive d Cr im e St oppe r tip s c onc er nin g bo th Whid don’ s r es ide nc e an d his busi ne ss. A cc or din g to I nve sti ga tor H ughe s’ s a ff

ida vit , the tips st ated that “ there w ere susp icious activiti es at this location where there wa s
a str ong ch em ic al sm el l c om ing f ro m the bus ine ss of Pe rf

orm an ce A uto . ” T he ti ps further stated that there wa s heavy traff ic in and out of the busin ess, e ven after norm al bu si ne ss ho ur s. H u g h e s s t a t e dt h a th i s c o rr o b o r a t i o n o f t h e t i p s i n c l u d e dc o n t a c tw i t h “a confidential and reliable inform ant having dealings w ith R eggie Whidd on and Jerry Ma co n, a nd p er sona lly

se ei ng c ry sta l m et ha m

ph eta m ine a t the bus ine ss . . . a nd [h aving seen] cry stal m etham phetam ine and [having] knowledge that cr y stal
m etham phetam ine is being m anufactured in the residence
. . . within the past 72 ho urs
w hic h is con tr ar

y to la w . ” H ughe s w en t onto sa y tha t “ inf orm at ionobt ai ne d f

ro m5

confidential infor m an t revealed” that W hidd on and Macon m anufactured cr y stal
m etha m phe ta m ine a t the r es ide nc e an d st or ed the fi nis he d prod

uc t at the busi ne ss, the ad dr es s o f whi ch Hug he s v eri fie d t hr ou gh th e Hen ry Co un ty W at er Au th or it y . Th e mag i s t ra t e ju d g e co n du ct ed an ev i d en t i ar y h ea ri n g o n Whi d d o n ’s supp re s sio n m oti on, a t w hic h A PD I nve sti ga tor H ughe s a nd H CS O I nve sti ga tor T ro y Si lva te sti fi ed about the f oll ow ing : the ir

inv es tig at ionle ad ing up t o th e se ar chof Whidd on’s r esidence; the Novem ber 18, 2003 controlled b uy that wa s co o rd inated at Whid don’ s pl ac e of

bus ine ss; a nd o the r inf

ro m at ionga the re d f

ro m th e CI, w ho In ve sti ga tor

S ilv a ha d us ed

in the pa st. T he CI ind ic at ed to Si lva tha t Whid don regularly cooked m etham

phetam ine on Tuesday s or Thursday s; he had surveillance equip m en t, gun s a nd p oss ibl y e xpl osi ve s inhis r es ide nc e; a nd h e w as tr an spor tin g drug s fr om

hi s h ou se to hi s p la ce o f bu si ne ss “ aft er h ou rs .” T he m ag istra te j udge iss ue d ar ep ort and r ec om m en da tio n (“ R& R” ), w he re in she re co m

m en de d tha t Whid don’ s m oti on to supp re ss be de nie d. Sh e fo und the following facts: (1) the Cr im e Stopper tips wer e detailed and specific and appeared to have been based on firsthand observation; (2) the invest igating officer s
co rr obor at ed

the ti ps w ithar el ia

ble CI , w ho ha d de al ing s w ithWhid don, pe rs ona lly
saw m etham

phetam ine at the busin ess and at the residence, and had kno wledge that
m etha m phe ta m ine w as be ing m anuf ac tur ed in the r es ide nc e; ( 3) the CI ga ve theThe mag istrate judg e fur ther c oncluded that, e ven if proba ble ca use did not exi st, the 1 g ood-fa ith ex ception, ar

ticulated in United States v. L eon, 468 U.S. 897, 908, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3413, 82 L . Ed. 2d 677 (1984), applies. This exception provides that “c ourts g ener ally should not render inadmissible evidence obtain e d b y p o lic e off icer s actingin rea sonable re liance upon a sear ch wa

rra nt that is ulti mately

found to be unsupporte d by probable cause .” United States v. Mar tin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2002). The ma g istrate judg e found t h e ex ce ption applicable ba sed on the following circ umstances: the office rs knew the C I for one and one-half months prior to g etting the CI ’s assistance with Whi ddon; the CIhad pre vi o usly “made ” two ca ses for the office rs involving marijuana ; the office rs wer e aw are t h at t h e C Ihad purc hased me thamphetamine f rom Whiddon’s business the day

befor e the se arch; and the off icer s knew that the CI

was only actingas a “ g ood citizen” in assisting them and did not rec eive assistance with any char g es ag ainst him for doing so. Be cause we a g ree with the mag istrate judg e’s c onclusion that the sear ch wa rra n t af fi davit was sufficie nt to support probably cause , we ne ed not, and do not, re ach the applica bility of the L eon g ood-fa ith ex ception. 6 of fi ce rs the na m es of

tw o of the ind ivi dua ls i nvol ve d w iththe m etha m phe ta m ine
m anuf ac tur ing a s w el l a s th e loca tio n of the r es ide nc e an d th e busi ne ss, w hic h th e of fi ce rs ve ri fi ed ; and (4 ) the CI ’ s obse rv at ion s we re m ad e w ith in the 72 h our s pr ior to the f i l i n g o f t h e a f f i d a v i ts u c h t h a tt h e i n f

o rm a t i o n w a s n o ts t a l e . A s f or W hid don’s arg um en t co nc ern in g t he sco pe of t he sea rch warran t, t he m ag is tra te jud ge fo und tha t the w ar

rant inc lud ed a se ar ch of the ve hic le s a t the r es ide nc e, pa rt ic ularl y since the affidavit stated the CI inform ed the officer s that the m etham phetam ine was be ing tr an spor

te d by c ar fr om Whid don’ s re sid en ce to his busi ne ss “ af te r hour s. ” T he
m ag istra te j udge c onc lud ed tha t the re w as suf

fi ci en t pr obabl e caus e to s ust ai n th e
se ar chw ar

rant. 1 T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the R& R and d en ie d Whid don’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s. Whid don the n e nte re d a condi tio na l guilty ple a, w he re in h e ag re ed to ple ad gui lty to7

be ing af el on i n posse ssi on of a fir earm , in viol at ion of 18 U. S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), a nd the gove rn m en t a gr ee d to dis m iss the r em ai nin g c ount c ha rg ing him

w ithpos se ssi on o f
m etha m phe ta m ine
. I n ente ri ng h is p le a, Whid don re se rv ed his r igh t t o a

ppe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of

his m oti on t o su

ppr es s. T he di st ric t c ourt su bse que ntl y sentenced Whidd on to a 3 7-m onth term of im prisonm ent followed by

a 3-y ear term of sup er vis ed r el ea se . T his appe al f

oll ow ed
. Fi rs t, Whid don ar gue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt er re d by fi ndi ng tha t the inf orm at ion in the se ar chw ar

rant’ s a ff idavi t w as suf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh p ro bable c au se . T he Fo urth A m en dm en t pr osc ri be s un re as onabl e sear ch es and s ei zu re s a nd r equir es a
se arch warran t t o b e su pp or te d b y pro ba bl e cau se . See U.S. Con st ., Am en d. IV. To
es ta bli sh pr oba

ble c au se , the se ar chw ar rant a ff ida vit m ust “ sta te f ac ts s uf fi ci en t t o j ust if y ac onc lus iontha t e vid en ce o r co ntr ab an d w ill pr oba bly be f ound a t the prem ises to be searched. ” U nited States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 130 8, 1314 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, t h e a f

f i d a v i t s h o u l de s t ab l i s h “a
co nne ct ionbe tw ee n th e de fe ndant and the r es ide nc e to b e se ar ch ed a nd a li nk betwee n the residence and any crim inal activity .” Id. at 1 314. W e look to th e fa ce of apa rt ic ular affid av it to ev al ua te w he the r the a ff ida vit w as “ so l ac kin g inind ic ia of pro ba bl e cau se as to ren de r of fic ia l bel ie f in it s exi st en ce en ti rel y un reas on ab le .” Id. a t 1313 (citation om itted).8

H er e, the fa ct s all eg ed w ith in the f our c or ne rs of the se ar chw ar

rant a ff ida vit
w er e suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh a c onne ct ionbe tw ee n Whid don, the pla ce s to be se ar ch ed , and crim inal activity
. Specifica lly , in the search warrant affidavit, Offi ce r H u g hes
averre d, am ong o ther things , that: (1) he had rece ived tips that susp icious activity wa s goin g on a t, and a strong chem ical sm ell em anating from , W hidd on’s business; (2) a CI had drug dea lings with Whidd on a t the busin ess and had firsthand kn owledge that Whidd on was m anufacturing m etham phetam ine at h is hom e and selling the drug s at his bus ine ss; a nd (3 ) the dr ug de al ing s w ith the CI ha d tr an spi re d w ith in 72 h our s of the sw eari ng o f the af

fi da vit
. O n th is r ec or d, w e cannot sa y tha t the inf

orm at ionin the search warr ant wa s “ so lacking in indicia of p robable cause as to re nder official be lie f in i ts e xis te nc e en tir el y unr ea sona

ble
. ” Id
. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d not e rr by r ej ec tin g Whid don’ s c ha lle nge to the suf fi ci en cy of the a ff ida vit a nd de ny ing his m oti on t o su

ppr es s. W e ar e likewise unpersuaded by Whidd on’s second argum ent, that the offic ers
we re r equired to obt ain another search w arrant before they sear ch ed the sealed bag found in the autom obile at his residence. T he s earch war rant gave the office rs pe rm is si on to sea rch form et ha m ph et am in e in th e v eh ic le s at Whi dd on ’s ho us e. “ [A]
w ar rant to se ar ch a spe ci fi c ar ea fo r a ce rt ai n cl as s of thi ngs au tho ri ze s go ve rn m en t ag en ts to bre akop en lo ck edco nt ai ne rs whi ch m ay co nt ai n t he ob

jects of t he sea rch .”Dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit Unit B a

re bindingprec edent in this Circuit. See 2 Stein v. Rey

nolds Securities, 667 F.2d 33, 34 ( 11th Cir. 1982).

9 Jackson, 120 F.3d at 1228-29 ; see also United Sta tes v. Morr is, 647 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (holdin g th at s ea rch w arrant for defendant’ s residence authorized off i c e r s t o op e n l oc ke d j e w e l ry bo x; r e j e c t i ng a r gu m e nt t ha t se par a t e w a rr a nt was required). Where a

warrant has been issued, “ a lawfu l search of fixed prem ises 2 ge ne r a l l y e x t e n d s t o t h e e n t i r e a r e ai n w h i c h t h e o b j e c to f t h e s e a r c h m a y

b e f o u nd
an d is not

li m ite d by

the po ss ibi lity

tha t se pa ra te a ct s of

e ntr y or ope nin g m ay

be
re qui re d to c om

ple te the se ar ch
. ” U nit ed St at es v. Ro ss, 456 U
. S. 798, 820- 21, 102 S. Ct
. 215 7, 217 0- 71, 72 L
. E d. 2d 57 2 (1 982) ( fo otn ote om itt ed ). S im ply put , the of fi ce rs did not e xc ee d th e sc ope of

the w ar rant w he n th ey

opened th e ba gs f

ound ins ide ave hic le pa rk ed

a t Whid don’ s re sid en ce . T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t err wh en it de ni edWhi dd on ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s o n t hi s b as is
. AFFIRMED.