Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50563
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la in tiff

–A p p e lle e , v. M A N U E L M U N IZ , D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t
.

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 1 :07 -C R -1 7 2 -3
B ef ore D AV IS, O W E N , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * M a n u e l M u n iz a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s e v id e n tia r y r u lin g s in v o lv e d in h i s con victi on f

or co n sp i ra cyto po sse s s w ith i n ten t t o d i strib u te
m eth a m p h eta m i n e a n d con s p ira cyto po sse ss w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te c o c a in e . W e a ffir m . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50563

2 I M u n i z a n d eigh t othe r co-de fen d a n ts w ere i n d ic te d f or co n sp i ra cyto p o s s e s s w ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u te 5 0 0 g r a m s o rm o r e o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e in vi ol ati on of

21 U
. S
. C
. §§ 841 ( a) ( 1) , 8 41(b) ( 1) (A) , a n d 846
. T h e i n di ct m en tal l eged th a t t h e con sp i ra cyex i sted f rom Ju n e 2 0 0 5 u n ti l t h e d a te of th e ind i ctm en t. Subs e que ntt o t he f i r s ti ndi c t m en t , t he G o ve r nm e nto bt ai ne d as upe r s e di ng i n di ct m en ta g ai n stM u n i z onl y. Th i s i n di ct m en tcharged hi m w i t h conspi racy t o possess w i t h in t en tt o di st ribu t e 500 gram s of coc ai n e an d 50 0 gram s of
m eth a m p h eta m i n e a n d am en d ed t he peri od of con sp i ra cyf rom an u n k n ow n da te in 2 0 0 0 to O c to b e r4 , 2 0 0 7 , th e d a te M u n iz w a s a r r e s te d
. Bef o r e t r i al , M uni z f

i l e d am o t i o n t o s upp r e s s e vi de nc e o f c o c ai ne pos se ss i on c ol l ec t ed dur i ng a 2001 t r af f i c s t op o n t he gr ound t hatt he s ear c h w as c o nduc t e d i n v i o l at i o n of h i s Fo ur t h Am e ndm e ntr i ght s . M uni z a l s o f i l e d a
m o tio n to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e co lle c te d d u r in ga M a r c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 s e a r c h o f h is h o m e o n th e g r o u n d th a t t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t w a s n o t s u p p o r te d b yp r o b a b le
cau se. Th e di st ri ct court h el d an evi den t i ary h eari n g an d denied both m ot i on s. A tt ri al , t h e prosecuti on cal led si x of M u n i z’ s al l eged co- conspir ator s. T h ree of

them h ad b een indic t ed i n federalcourt(M ark C opel an d, D an n y W al t on an d A n drew H arri s) an d tw o i n st ate c ou rt(A aron C on dron a n d C h ri st oph er A pp l et on )
. Th e si xth, C h ad R egeon , w a s a n u n i n di ct ed co- conspir ator
c o o pe r at i ng w i t h t he i nve s t i ga t i o n. Fiveo f t he si x w i t n esses t est i f i ed that M u n i z sol d them m et ham phe t am i ne or c ocai n e. C opel an d tes t i f i ed that he b o u g h tsm al lam ou n t s of coc ai n e t w i ce f rom M u n i z an d a s m a llam ou n tof m et h am ph et am i n e once. W al t on t est i f i ed t h at h e pu rchased a t ot alof betw een one an d on e- an d-one- h al f oun ces of
m et ham phet am i ne f r om M uniz b et w ee n N ove m ber2006 and January 2 007. Condr o n t e s t i f

i e d t hathe b o ugh tc o c ai ne f r o m M uni z unt i l2 00 1 and
m e t ham phe t am i ne a f t e rM uni z r e t ur ne d f r o m I r aqi n 2005
. Reg e o n a ndN o. 08- 50563

3 Appl e t o n l i ke w i s e t e s t i f i e d t hatt he y pur c has e d b o t h c o c ai ne a nd
m et ham phet am i ne f r equent l y. S ev era lcoop era ti n g w i tn ess es also testi fi ed th a t th eyw en t w i th M u n i z to A ust i n t o pur c hase m et ham phet am i nes f r om hi s suppl i er . Regeo n t es t i f i ed t hat h e w a s w ith M u n iz in A u s tin w h e n M u n iz clo s e d a d r u gd e a l, a lth o u g h h e d id
n o t a c tu a llys e e th e tr a n s a c tio n o c c u r . R e g e o n a ls o cla im e d th a t M u n iz to ld h im t haton a t r i p t he pr evi ous w ee k, M uni z had t os se d dr ugs w r apped i n ca m ouf l age ou tof t h e car becau se he bel i eved a t raf f i c st op w as i m m i n en t
. R egeon cl ai m ed h e a n d M u n iz s e a r c h e d fo rth e d r u g s o n th e irw a yh o m e fr o m A u s tin
. Th e G ov ern m en t also call ed si x law

- enf or c em entof

f i c er s, i ncl udi ng Spec i al A g e n tR a y m o n d R iv e r a , O ff ic e rT yT u ll yo f t h e M c C u ll o c h C o u n t yS h e r if f’s D e p a r tm e n t, a n d L ie u te n a n t B r ia n B a x te r . R iv e r a te s tifie d th a t h e d r o v e M u n iz t o A u st i n af

t er he w as arres te d in B rady an d that, du ri n g t h e drive, he h eard M u n i z st ate t h at M u n i z kn ew he w as b ei n g i n vest i gated an d w as the targetof a consp i racy case an d t h at M u n i z ha d som eon e checki n g f or w arran t s. O f

f i cer T u llyte s tifie d to c o n d u c tin g a tr a ffic s to p o f M u n iz in 2 0 0 1 d u r in gw h ic h T u lly di scovered M u n iz w it h f ive t o si x gram s of

coc ai n e, a sm al lsc al e, an d other
m isce ll an eou s i t em s. M u n i z w as arres t ed an d cha rged w i t h possess i on of cocai n e i n T exas st ate c ou rt , bu tt h e ch arge w as lat er d i sm i ssed. O f f i cer B axter,
w h o coor di n ated t h e i n vest i gati on , chi ef l y t est i f i ed abou tthe f

rui t s of t h e M arch 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 s e a r c h o f M u n iz ’ s h o m e . T h e s e a r c h r e c o v e r e d e v id e n c e s u c h a s s m a ll
z i pl o c b ag gi e s , a m anua lf o ra di gi t als c al e , a m i l i t ar y no t e bo o k c o n t ai ni ng nam e s and pho ne num be r s o f pe o pl e Baxt e rw as i nve s t i ga t i ng, c he c ks s ho w i ng c as h wi t hdr awal s o f

$ 12 , 50 0, a l e t t e rf

r o m M uni z ’ s m o m c aut i o ni ng hi m a bo ut gett i n g a l aw yer, vari ou s f i rearm s, an d a n al l eged “ cutt i n g agen t” ( a w h i t i sh p o w d e ro rcr y s ta llin e s u b s ta n c e ). M uni z c al l ed s i x w i t nes se s att r i al
. F ourof t hes e w i t nes se s w er e N at i onal G uar d s o l di e r s w ho served w i t h M uni z i n I r aqo rpa r t i c i pa t e d i n wee ke ndN o. 08- 50563

United States v. Brigham , 3 8 2F .3 d 5 0 0 , 5 0 6n .2( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 4) (e nb anc)
. 1 United States v. Ib arra , 4 9 3F .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 0( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 2 3 9 2U .S
. 1 ( 1 9 6 8). 3 Id
. at 1 9 -2 0
. 4 4 t r ai ni ng w i t h hi m . They t es t i f i ed t hat t hey di d nots ee M uni z use dr ugs i n I r aq o ri n t r ai ni ng f

o rdep l o ym e nt
. M uni z a l s o c al l e d Er i c O r t e ga , hi s b e s tf r i e nd, a nd K ayl a G uaj ar do, hi s gi r l f r i end. Bot h sai d t hey had neve rs ee n M uni z use ordeal dr ugs . The G o ve r nm e ntt he n c r o s s - e xa m i ne d Or t e ga and G uaj ar do c o nc e r ni ng M uni z ’ s pr i o rar r e s t s fo ras s aul t , D W I , and ev ad i ng ar r e s t , am o ng o t he r s . The di s t r i c tc o ur to ve r r ul e d M uni z ’ s o bj e c t i o n t o t he c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n o f O r t e gab ut M u n iz d id n o t r e n e w h is o b je c tio n d u r in gth e q u e s tio n in go f G u aja r d o . Aj ury c onvi c t ed M uni z of c ons pi r ac y and t he c our ts e nt enc ed M uni z t o 2 35
m o nt hs i m pr i s o nm e nt
. M uni z t i m e l y ap pe al e d. II W h e n r e v i e wi n gt h e de ni a lof a mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , t h i s c o u r tr e v i e ws fin d in g s o f fa c t fo r c le a r e r r o r a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f la w d e n o v o . W e co n s id e ra ll 1 t he e vi de nc e a tt r i al , “ no tj us tt hatpr e s e nt e d bef o r e t he r ul i ng o n t he
s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n , in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e p r e v a ilin gp a r ty .” 2 A M u n i z a rg u es th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt er r e d w h e n it d en i ed h i s m oti on to sup press t h e evi den ce of t h e 200 1 tr af

f i c s t op. Traff

i c s t ops are an al yzed u n der t he f r am e w o r k s e tf

o r t h b y t he Supr e m e Cour ti n T er ry v. O h io
. U n der T err y , 3 t o com pl y w i t h t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en t , a n off i cer’ s acti on a ta traf f i c st op m u st ( 1) b e j us t i f

i e d a ti t s i nc e pt i o n a nd ( 2) r e as o nab l y rel ate i n s c o pe t o t he ci rcum st an ces w h i ch j u st i f i ed the st op. R egard i n g t h e sec on d p rong, t h i s c ou rt 4 h as previ ou sl y h el d t h at a detenti on m ay n otexceed t h e sc ope of t h e i n i t i alst opN o. 08- 50563

United States v. Jenson , 4 6 2F .3 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 5 United States v. Mask , 3 3 0F .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 4 , 3 3 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3). 6 See United States v. Sanchez-P ena , 336 F.3d 43 1, 441 (5th Cir. 2 003) (“Solo ngas ‘a 7 reaso nab le personwoul d feel free to decline the officers’ re que sts or otherwise terminate the enco unte r, ’ it iscons ens ual. ” (quo ting United States v. Drayto n , 5 3 6U .S
. 1 9 4 , 2 0 2(2 0 0 2 )) ).

United States v. Bro wn , 1 0 2F .3 d 1 3 9 0 , 1 3 9 4 -9 7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 6); see alsoOh iov . 8 Robi nette , 51 9 U .S. 33 , 39 -40 (199 6) (holdin g that arule requirin g an officer toinform detainee s that theyare fre e togo b eforea conse nt to se archis deemed voluntarywas inappropri ate and that instea d “th e proper inquiry nece ssitate s a consi derationof allth e circu mst ance s s urroun din gth e encou nter”(citationan d intern al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed))
. 5 u n l ess ad di t i on alreasonab l e suspi ci on ari ses i n t h e course of t h e st op an d befor e t he i ni t i alpur po s e o f t he s t o p ha s b e e n f

ul f i l l e d. 5 M u n i z concedes t h at O f f i cer T u l l y’ s i n i t i alstop w as a val i d tr af f i c s t op f or fai l ur e t o pr o pe r l y s i gna la l ane c hang e b uta r gue s t hatTul l y’ s s ubs e que nt q u e s tio n in ga fte rth e p u r p o s e o f th e tr a ffic s to p e n d e d w a s a n u n r e a s o n a b le detenti on . Th e di st ri ctcourtdeter m i n ed that O f f i cer T u l l y ’ s qu est i on i n g of M uni z o c c ur r e d d ur i ng a c o ns e ns uale nc o unt e ra nd t hatt he Fo ur t h Am e ndm e nt di d no t ap pl y. A d i s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de t e r m i nat i o n t hat an e xc hang e w i t h a pol i ce o f f i c e rc o ns t i t ut e s a c o n sensu al e nc o unt e r , r at he rt han a s e i z ur e i m pl i c at i ng Fourt h A m endm entpr ot ec t i ons , i s a fac t ualf i ndi ng r eve r sibl e o nl y f orc l ear error . 6 Af t er Of f i c e rTul l y c o m pl e t e d t he w ar r ant s c he c k a nd i s s ue d aw ar ni ng c ita tio n , h e g a v e M u n i z b a c k h is d r iv e r ’ s lice n s e . A t t h is p o in t, a re a s o n a b le person w ou l d beli eve t h at t h e traf f i c st op h ad en ded an d that he w ou l d be f ree t o t er m i nat e t he e nco unte r . Contr ar y t o M uni z’ s c ont ent i on, O f f i c erTu l l y w as 7 notr equi r ed t o i nf

or m M uni z t hatt he l egaldet ent i on had c onc l uded. Al t hough 8 O f f i c e rTul l y t he r e af

t e ri m m e di at e l y be ga n t o q ue s t i o n M uni z t o “ t ak e c o ns e nt o rde ve l o p r e as o nab l e sus pi c i o n, ” t hi s f o l l o w - o n q ue s t i o ni ng di d no tc hang e t heN o. 08- 50563

See Sanchez-P

ena , 3 3 6F .3 d at 4 4 3
. 9 4 6 2F .3 d 3 9 9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 103 1 0F .3 d 3 3 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 11 2 3 4F .3 d 2 3 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 0). 12 1 9 9F .3 d 1 9 3( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 13 See Jenson , 4 6 2F
. 3 dat4 0 7 ; Sa n ti ago , 3 1 0F .3 d at 3 4 3 ; Jones , 23 4 F .3d at 2 43; 14 Dortch , 1 9 9F .3 d at 2 0 2
.

See Jenson , 46 2F. 3 d at4 0 2 -0 3 ; Santi ago , 3 1 0 F .3 d at 3 3 8 -3 9 ; Jones , 23 4 F .3d at 2 37- 15 3 8 ; Dortch , 1 9 9F .3 d at 1 9 5 -9 6
. 6 c o n s e n s u a l e n c o u n te rin to a n ille g a l d e te n tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly 9 err i n i ts d eterm i n a ti on th a t th e p ost- T err y - st op quest i oni ng w as a co nse nsual
e n c o u n te r . M uni z a r gue s t hatour pr e vi o us de c i s i o ns i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jen son , 10 Uni ted St at e s v. San t i ago , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , a nd Uni t e d S t at e s v. 11 12 D ort ch requi re a di f ferent c on cl u si on . B u ti n each of t h ese c ases, t h e of f i cers 13 fai l e d t o r e t ur n a dr ive r ’ s l i c e ns e t ak e n i n furt h er anc e o f t he i ni t i als t o p. 14 A dd i t i on al l y, i n each case t h e of f i cers i n vol ved began t h ei r i n i t i alqu est i on i n g of t he de fe nda nt s b e f

o r e t he t r af

f i c s t o p was c o m pl e t e a nd c o nt i nue d t he sa m e l i ne o f que s t i o ni ng af

t e rt he pur po s e f

o rt he i ni t i alt r af

f i c s t o p ha d b e e n f

ul f i l l e d. 15 In co n tr a s t, O ffic e rT u llyre tu r n e d a ll o f M u n iz ’ s p a p e r w o r k , in c lu d in gh is dri ver’ s l i cense, an d d i d n ot b e g i n aski n g qu est i on s c on cerni n g susp ect ed
n a r c o tic s a c tiv ity u n til a fte rth e in itia l T err y s t o p had e nde d. The r e f o r e , unl i ke i n M uni z ’ s c i t e d c a s e s , Of f i c e rTu l l y ’ s q ue s t i o ni nga nds ub s e q ue ntc o ns e ns ual
s e a r c h d id n o t ille g a llyp r o lo n gth e in itia l T err y s t o p. B as ed on our c onc l usi on t hat t he ques t i oni ng w as n ot p a rt of an i l l egal detai n m en t bu t rat h er a consen sua l en coun t er, w e n eed onl y determ i n e w h et h er M uni z v o l unt ar i l y c o ns e nt ed t o t he s e ar c h o f hi s pe r s o n a nd v e hi c l e . TheN o. 08- 50563

Un ited Statesv . Me n denh al l , 4 4 6U .S
. 5 4 4 , 5 5 7( 1 9 8 0) (cit ationo mitt ed). 16 Jenson , 46 2 F .3d at 4 06. 17 7 qu est i on w h et h er M u n i z’ s c on sent w as vol u n t ary or w a s th e produ ctof du ress o r co e r c i o n, e x p r e s s o ri m p l i e d , “ i s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d b yt h e t o t a l i t yo f a l lt he ci rcum st an ces an d i s a m att er w h i ch the G overnm en tha s t h e bu rden of p r o v in g .” 16 V ol unt ar i ne s s i s de t e r m i ne d b y e xa m i ni ng s i x s e pa r at e fac t o r s : ( 1) t he vol u n t ari n ess of

M u n i z’ s c u st od ialst atus; ( 2) t h e presence of coer cive pol i ce procedu res; ( 3) t h e ext en tan d l evelof M u n i z’ s c oopera ti on w i t h t h e pol i ce; ( 4) M uni z ’ s aw ar e ne s s of hi s r i ghtt o r e f

us e c o ns e nt ; ( 5) M uni z ’ s e duc at i o n a nd i nt el l i genc e; and ( 6) M u n i z’ s bel i ef t hatno i ncr i m i nat i ng evi denc e w i l lbe fo u n d
. T h e G o v e r n m e n t a s s e r ts , a n dM u n iz d o e s n o t c o n te s t, th a t O ffic e rT u lly

17 ret u rned M u n i z’ s dri ver’ s l i cense an d provi ded a w arn i n g ci t ati on , t h at O f f i cer T u l l y d i d n ot u se a n y co ercive po li ce p roce d u res, t h a t M u n i z coo p era ted w i th O f f i cer T u l l y, an d that t h e t on e of t h e conversati on w as subd u ed. U n der t h ese c i r c um st ance s, t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatM uni z’ s c onsen t w as v o lu n ta r yw a s n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d M u n iz ’ s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s th e e v id e n c e o b ta in e d d u r in gth e 2 0 0 1 tr a ffic
s to p . B M uni z c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y fai l i ng t o s upp r e s s t he
e vi de nc e ga t he r e d dur i ng t he M ar c h 20 07 s e ar c h o f M uni z ’ s ho m e b e c aus e t he
m agis t rat e j u dg e si gn i n g t h e w arran tcoul d n otha ve h ad a su bstanti alb asi s f or c o nc l udi ng t hatpr o ba bl e c aus e e xi s t e d. “ I n c o ns i de r i ng a Four t h Am e ndm e nt cha l l en ge t o a sei zure cond u ct ed p u rsu an tt o a searc h w arran t , w e ask f i rst
w h et h er t h e sei zure fal l s w i t h i n t h e good-fai t h excepti on t o t h e excl u si on aryN o. 08- 50563

Un ited Statesv . Dav is , 2 2 6F .3 d 3 4 6 , 3 5 0( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 0). 18 United States v. Cherna , 1 8 4F .3 d 4 0 3 , 4 0 7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 19 United States v. Leo n , 4 6 8U .S
. 8 9 7 , 9 2 2( 1 9 8 4). 20 Id
. at 9 2 2 -9 2 3(citationan d fo otnot eso mitt ed). 21 Id
. at 9 2 3
. 22 Id
. 23 8 r ul e . ” I f

t he go o d- fai t h ex c e pt i o n appl i e s , “ w e end o uranal ys i s and af f i r m t he 18 d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to d e n yth e m o tio n to s u p p r e s s .” 19 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t e v id e n c e o b ta in e d b yo ffic e r s in obj ect ivel y reasona bl e good-fai t h rel i an ce upon a searc h w arran ti s adm i ssibl e, even t h ou gh t h e w arran tw as u n sup ported b y proba bl e cau se. “N evert h el ess, 20 t h e of f i cer’ s r el i an ce on t h e m a g istrate’ s probable- cau se det erm i n ati on an d on t h e t echn i cal suff

i ci en cy of

t h e w arran the i ssues m u stbe obj ect ivel y reasona bl e, a n d it is cle a rth a t in s o m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s th e o ffic e rw ill h a v e n o re a s o n a b le groun ds f

or bel i evi n g t h at t h e w arran tw as pr o p e rly i ssued
. ” Th ese 21
c ir c u m s ta n c e s in c lu d e w h e n (1 ) th e is s u in g -ju d g e “ w a s m is le d b yin fo r m a tio n in
an affi da vi tt h at t h e af f i an tkn ew w as fal se orw ou l d h ave k n ow n w as fal se e x c e p t fo rh is re c k le s s d is r e g a r d o f th e tr u th ,” (2 ) th e is s u in g -ju d g e “w h o lly aba n don ed h i s j u di ci alrol e” i n such a m an n er t h at “ n o reasonab l y w el lt rai n ed
o ffic e rs h o u ld re lyo n th e w a r r a n t,” (3 ) th e u n d e r ly in g a ffid a v it is “s o la c k in gin in d ic ia o f p r o b a b le ca u s e a s to re n d e ro ffic ia l b e lie f in its e x is te n c e e n tir e ly
unr e as o nab l e , ” o r( 4) t he w ar r anti s “ s o fac i al l y de f i c i e nt
. . . t hatt he e xe c ut i ng o ffic e r s ca n n o t r e a s o n a b lyp r e s u m e it to b e v a lid .” 22 M u n i z c o n ten d s th a t t h e g oo d -fa i th ex cep ti on i s n ot av a i l a b l e to L ie u te n a n t B a x te rb e c a u s e t h e w a r r a n t w a s b a s e d o n a n a ffid a v it “ s o la c k in gin in d ic ia o f p r o b a b le ca u s e a s to r e n d e r b e lie f in its e x is te n c e e n tir e ly
unr e as o nab l e . ” M u n i z f i r s ta r gue s t hatt he i nf o r m at i o n c o nt ai ne d i n t he 23N o. 08- 50563

See United States v. Free man , 68 5 F .2d 9 42, 951 (5th Cir. 1 982) (“Although probable 24 caus e may exis t at one po int to believe that evide nce will be fou nd in a given place , thepass age of ti me may(without additional newer facts co nfirmingt hel ocationof the evidence sought) re n der th e original inform ationin suff icie nt toe st ab li shp rob ab lec au seat th e later ti me .”). United States v. Alvarez , 451 F.3d 320, 332 (5th Cir. 2006) (qu oti ng Un ited Statesv . 25 Pena-Rodriguez , 1 1 0F .3 d 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 3 0( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 7))
.

United States v. Blou nt , 1 2 3F .3 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 7) (e nb anc)
. 26 9 af f i da vi tw as st al e. W hi l e t he t e m po r alpr o xi m i t y o f i nf o r m at i o n i n a n a f

f i da vi ta f

fe c t s t he proba bl e cause i n qu i ry, w h en “ t h e i n f orm ati on of

t h e af f i da vi t cl earl y show s a 24 l o ng- s t and i ng, o ngo i ng pa t t e r n of cr i m i nalac t ivi t y” t hi s c o ur ti s “ m o r e t o l e r ant
o f da t e d a l l e ga t i o ns . ” B ax t e r ’ s af f i da vi ti nc l ude d i nf

o r m at i o n gl e ane d ov e rt he 25
s i x m o nt hs he i nve s t i gated M uni z b e f o r e s e e ki ng a w ar r ant
. The w ar r ant i nc l ude d i nf

o r m at i o n f

r o m t w o i de nt i f

i e d and f

ive co nf i de nt i ali nf

o r m ant s w ho h a d d e a lin g s w ith M u n iz in v o lv in gt h e t r a n s p o r ta tio n a n d d is tr ib u tio n o f illic it dr ugs . Bax t e r ’ s i nt e r vi e w s o f t he s e i nf

o r m ant s o c c ur r e d c o nt i nuo us l y o ve rt he
s i x- m o nt h pe r i o d, t he l at e st o f w hi c h was ni ne da ys b e f o r e Baxt e rs o ugh tt he
s e ar c h war r ant
. Bas e do n t h e i nf o r m at i o n pr o vi de d b y t he s e i nf o r m ant s a l l e gi ng c o n tin u o u s d r u ga c tiv ity b yM u n iz , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r lye r rin d e te r m in in gth a t t h e in fo r m a tio n in th e a ffid a v it w a s n o t s ta le
. M uni z a l s o a r gue s t hatt he a f f i da vi tl ac ke d p r o ba bl e c aus e b ecau se t he i nf or m ant s w er e unr el i abl e. “ Th er e i s n o set r equi r em entt hatal lt i ps be
corr oborated by sub sequ en tpol i ce i n vest i gati on i n order t o be cons id e red credibl e. W h et h er s u bsequ en tcor roborat i on i s necessary m u stbe deter m in ed i n t h e l i gh tof

t h e t ot al i t y of

t h e ci rcum st an ces presented by t h e parti cul ar set
o f fa c ts .” 26 Baxt e r ’ s a f

f i da vi ti nc l ude d i nf

o r m at i o n de s cribi ng bo t h g e ne r ala nd spe c i f i c i nci dent s of

dr ug t r af

f i c ki n g, det ai l s of

w hi c h w er e c or r obo r at ed by B axter’ s ow n i n vest i gative ef f ort s, fel l ow of

f i cers , or ot h er i n f

orm an t s. B ased onN o. 08- 50563

Un ited Statesv . S u mli n , 4 8 9F .3 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 27 United States v. West , 58 F.3d1 3 3, 141 (5 th Cir. 1995) (qu oti ng Un ited Statesv . 28 We lls , 5 2 5F .2 d 9 7 4 , 9 7 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 7 6))
. 10 t he i nf o r m at i o n pr o vi de d byse ve n i nf o r m ant s and B ax t e r ’ s ow n i nve s t i ga t i o n, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r lye r rw h e n it d e te r m in e d th a t B a x te r ’ s a ffid a v it
w as not so l acking i n i n di ci a of proba bl e cau se as t o render good

- fai t h rel i an ce on the w a rra n t un rea son a b l e. A ccord i n gly, w e con cl u d e th a t th e g oo d -fa i th
ex cep ti on ap p l i es a n d tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt pro p erly d en i ed M u n i z’ s m oti on to
s u p p r e s s th e e v id e n c e o b ta in e d d u r in gth e M a r c h 2 0 0 7 s e a r c h o f h is h o m e . III M uni z a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur ter r e d i n per m i t t i ng t he G o ve r nm e nt to cr o s s -e x a m in e M u n iz ’ s b e s t fr ie n d , E r ic O r te g a , a n d h is g ir l f r i e n d , K a y la G u aj ar do , r e ga r di ng M uni z ’ s pr i o ra r r e s t s . Bec aus e M uni z o bj e c t e d t o t he q u e s t io n in go f O r t e g a , w e r e v ie w th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d e c is io n to p e r m itO r t e g a ’s
cros s- exam i n ati on f

or a b u se of

di scr et i on . Th ere i s a di spu t e as t o w h et h er

27 M u n iz ’ s fa ilu r e to o b je c t t o th e G o v e r n m e n t’s c r o s s -e x a m in a tio n o f G u aja r d o in th e dist ri ct cou rt ch a n ge s ou r stan d a rd of rev i ew from a b u se of d i sc r e tio n to pl ai n err or. W e decl i n e t o deci de t h i s i ssue becau se regardl ess of t h e st an da rd ap pl i ed, an y errorby the di st ri ctcourtas t o t h e cr oss- exam i n ati on of O rt ega or G u aj ardo w as ha rm l ess. “[O ]n c e a w itn e s s h a s te s tifie d c o n c e r n in g a d e fe n d a n t’s g o o d ch a r a c te r , it i s p erm i ssible du ri n g cross-ex a m i n a ti on to a ttem p t to u n d erm i n e h i s cred ib i l i ty by ask i n g h i m w h et h er he ha s heard of pri or m i scondu ctof

t h e defen da n tw h i ch i s i n con sist en t w i th the w i tn ess ’ d i rect testi m on y.” H ow ev er, th ere are l i m i ts 28
on this typ e of cross-ex a m i n a ti on . “F i rst, the go ve rn m en t m u st h a ve a g oo d fa i th fac t ualbas i s f

ort he al l ege d pr i orm i sc onduct. Sec ond, t he i nci dent s m ustbeN o. 08- 50563

Id
. (f ootnot e omitte d)
. 29 See Hudd leston v. Un ited States , 48 5 U .S. 6 81 , 6 85 (19 88) (requirin g courts to 30 ex amine first whetherch aracter evidenc e un d erR ule 40 4(b) is probative of materialissu es oth erth anch aract er).

United States v. Hastin g, 46 1 U .S. 49 9, 5 08, 510 -11 (198 3) (notin g that “th ere canbe 31 no sucht hi ngas an error -free, perfecttri al” and denying reversalbecau se th e error was h armle ss b eyon d ar ea so n ab ledoub t)
. 11 r e le v a n t t o th e tr ia l.” 29 Arevi ew of

t h e rec ord revea l s nothi n g i n M u n i z’ s di rectexam i n ati on of O r t e ga o r G uaj ar do t hatpr o vi de d g r o unds f o rt he pr o s e c ut o rt o c r o s s - e xa m i ne t h em abou tM u n i z’ s c h aract er. Th e defen se’ s questi on i n g of t h ese w i t n esses f oc use d s ol el y o n w het hert hey had s ee n M uni z use orsel ldrugs. N ei t herO r t ega norG uaj ar do e xpr es se d an opi n i on a boutM uni z’ s c harac t er . The fac tt hat Or t e g a a n d Gu aj a r d o h a d a s p e c i a lr e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h Mun i z d o e s n o t , o n i t s o wn a c c o r d , o p e n th e d o o rfo rth e p r o s e c u t io n to c r o s s -e x a m in e th e m a b o u tM u n iz ’s p r io ro ffe n s e s . T h e p r o s e c u t io n ’s q u e s t io n s d id n o tr e la t e t o a n yi s s u e o t h e rth a n M u n iz ’s ch a ra cte r a n d fail th e th re sh o ldin q u iryu n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f E v id e n ce 4 0 4 (b ). 30 T h eref ore, t h e pri or i n ci den t s are n otrel evan tt o t h e t ri al an d the di st ri ctcourt
e r r e d i n al l o w i ng t he pr o s e c ut i o n’ s l i ne of q ue s t i o ni ng. H o w e ve r , a f t e rr e vi e w i ng t h e enti re r ecord and t h e evi den ce agai n stM u n i z, w e concl u de that t h e j u ry w oul d have r et urned agui l t y ve r di c tagai nstM uni z eve n w i t hout t he pr ej udi c i al te s tim o n y . A c c o r d in g ly , th e e r r o rw a s h a r m le s s .

31 * * * A F F IR M E D
.