2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-1-2011 

# U S A v . T y r one W i l li a ms
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-1400

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . T y r one W i l l i a m s " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1717. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/1717NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 10

- 1400

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. TYRONE D. WILLIAMS , a/k/a Willie Gulley Tyrone D. Williams, Appellant
Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Crim. No. 3

- 07

- cr - 00005

- 001 ) District Judge: Hon . Kim R. Gibson
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Monday, January 24 , 2011 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge , SMITH, Circuit Judge s ,

and STEARNS, District Judge (Opinion Filed: March 1, 2011 )

OPINION

McKEE, Chief Judge

.

Honorable Richard G. Stearns, District Court Judge, United States District Court for the District of Massachuset ts, sitting by designation.2

Tyrone Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his suppression motion. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. Since we write primarily for the parties , we need not set forth the factual history of this case in detail. 1
Williams file d a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the multiple searches of the house that resulted in him entering a conditional guilty ple a to violating 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1) and 924(e)

. The plea was entered after the district court partially denied his motion to suppress physical evidence

. Williams argues that : (1) the district c ourt erred in finding that the first search
warrant was supported by probable cause; and (2) the Leon “good faith” exce ption to the exclusionary rule does not apply. See United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 925 (1984) (holding that courts can “reject suppression motions posing no important Fourth Amendment que stions by turning immediately to a consideration of the officers’ good
faith

. ”). However, since the application of Leon is determinative, we need not de cide if the warrants were supported by probable cause. See United States v. Williams , 3 F.3d 69, 73 (3d Cir. 1993) ( finding that even if an affidavit lacked probable cause, the good faith exception would require reversal of a district court’s suppression order).

“ S uppression . . . is inappropriate when an officer executes a search in objectively
reasonable reliance on a warrant’s authority.” Id. at 74 ; accord Leon , 468 U.S. at 920

.

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review for clear error a district court’s factual findings,” while conducting “plenary review of legal rulings and mixed questions of law and fact.” United States v. Delf in

- Colina , 4 64 F.3d 392, 395

- 96 (3d Cir. 2006).3

This Court has determined that the exception to the exclusionary rule is appropriate because “[i]n the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate’s probable cause determination.” Williams , 3 F.3d at 74 (quoting Leon , 468 U.S. at 921). Nevertheless , the exception does not always apply , even when a search is supported by a search warrant. For example, it does not apply where an affidavit in support of the warrant contains knowingly or recklessly false information. See Leon , 468 U.S. at 923 (“Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was fals e . . . . ”). Similarly, “in cases where the magistrate wholly abandon[s] his judicial role,” or when an affidavit is “s o lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,” the good faith exception do es not apply

. Id. Williams argues that the affidavit was misleading because it included the statement from Paul’s daughter that suggested a gun was in the house

. However, the daughter’s statement was not false. To the contrary , the officers’ search d id reveal a gun in the master bedroom, which is exactly where the daughter suggested looking

. Williams also argues that the good faith exception should not apply because the affidavit was “bare bones.” As we have just explained, the good faith exception does not apply when an affidavit is “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Leon , 468 U.S. at 923. H ere, however, t he affidavit recounted the officers’ response to the domestic violen ce call, and explained why the officers believed that evidence of domestic violence would be found inside4

Williams’ home. Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that the Leon exception negated application of the exclusionary rule. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the d istrict c ourt’s order denying Williams’ request to suppress evidence pursuant to the search warrants.