FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAR 07, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 06- 14229 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN os. 04 -000 53 -C V -W C O -2

0 2 - 0 0 0 4 5 - CR- W CO N I K O C E P A D A B R O W N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 7, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n D ec em ber 4, 20 02 , P et i t i on er , havi ng pl ea d g ui l ty pursuantt o a pl ea2

a g r e e m e n t, w a s s e n te n c e d to p r is o n f o r2 6 2 m o n th s f

o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e a tl e a s t50 gr a m s of c r a c k c oc a i ne . W e a f

f i rm e d hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e n te n c e o n S e p te m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 3 . U n ite d S ta te s v . B r o w n , N o . 0 2 - 1 6 8 6 9 . O n M a r c h 9 , 2 0 0 4 , P e titio n e rm o v e d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to v a c a te h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 o n th e g r o u n d th a t h is a tto rn e yr e n d e r e d in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l b yf

a ilin g to f

ile am o tio n to s uppr e s s the drugs f

ound i n hi s aut om obi l e . F ol l ow i ng a n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge , i n he rR e porta nd R e c om m e nda t i on, r e c om m e nde d tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtde nythe m ot i on. T he c ourtdi d s o, a nd i s s ue d ac e rt i f i c a t e of ap p e a lab ilityo n o n e is s u e : “w h e th e rth e f a ilu r e o f p e titio n e r ’s c o u n s e l to i nve s t i ga t e a nd f

i l e am ot i on t o s uppr e s s c ons t i tut e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c o u n s e l.” T o m ak e o u ta cl ai m o f i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel , a p et i t i o n er m u st show thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as const i tut i on al l y def i ci entand thathe w as p r e ju d ic e d a s ar e s u lt. S tr ic k la n d v . W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 20 52 , 20 64 , 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (19 84 ). T he di sposi t i ve qu es t i on i s “ w hether co u n sel ’ s co n d u ctso u n d erm i n ed th e p ro p er fu n ct i o n i n g o f th e ad v ersari al p ro cess tha tthe tr i a l c a nnotbe r e l i e d on a s ha vi ng pr oduc e d aj us tr e s ul t . ” I d. a t686, 104 S . C t . a t2064. “ G i ve n the s tr ong pr e s um pt i on i n f a vorof c om pe t e nc e , the3

pet i t i on er ’ s burden o f per suas i on – tho ug h the pres um pt i on i s noti nsurm ou nt abl e – i s ahe a vy one . ” C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1314; s e e a l s o R oge r s v. Z a nt , 13 F . 3d 384, 38 6 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( no t i ng that“ the ca se s i n w hi ch habeas pet i t i on er s c an prop er l y pre vai l on the grou nd of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l ar e f ew and far b etw ee n ”) . U n less th e p etit io n erca n re b u t th e “stro n g p re su m p ti o n th at co u n se l’ s c onduc tf

a l l s w i thi n the w i de r a nge of r e a s onabl e pr of

e s s i ona l a s s i s t a nc e , ” he c a n n o t e s tab lis h th a t c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s c o n s titu tio n a llyd e f ic ie n t. S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . “T h e te s t h a s n o th in g to d o w ith w ha tthe be s tl a w y e r s w oul d ha ve done . N ori s the t e s te ve n w ha tm os tgood l a w y e r s w oul d ha ve done . W e a s k onl yw he the rs om e r e a s onabl e l a w y e ra tthe tri al coul d h ave a ct ed, i n the ci rc um st ance s, as defe nse c ou nsel ac t ed attri al . ” W hi t e v. S i ngl e t a ry , 972 F . 2d 1218, 1220 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ; s e e a l s o W a t e r s v. T hom a s , 46 F . 3d 1506, 1514 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ pe r f e c t i on i s notthe st andard of eff

ec t i ve as si st ance ”) . T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t g u a r a n te e s “[ t]h e r ig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e s e c u r e in the i rpe r s ons , hous e s , pape r s , a nd e f f e c t s , a ga i ns tunr e a s onabl e s e a r c he s a nd s e iz u r e s .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . I V . E v id e n c e o b ta in e d in v io la tio n o f th e F o u rth A m e ndm e ntm us tbe s uppr e s s e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i l be rt , 942 F . 2d 1537, 1541 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( c i t i ng M app v. O hi o, 367 U . S . 643, 81 S . C t . 1684, 6 L . E d. 2d4

1 0 8 1 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ) . I n m os tc i r c um s t a nc e s , unl e s s the r e i s c ons e nt , pol i c e of f i c e r s m us tobt a i n a w a rr a n t s u p p o rte d b yp r o b ab le c au s e to ju s tif yas e a r c h u n d e rth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . M a g lu ta , 4 1 8 F .3 d 1 1 6 6 , 1 1 8 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e rt. deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 29 66 (200 6). T here ar e, ho w ever , se vera l exce pt i on s t o thi s rul e, i nc l udi ng “ the aut om obi l e e xc e pt i on, ” w hi c h a l l ow s “ of f i c e r s [ t o] s e a r c h a ny c o n ta in e rin a n o p e r a tio n a l c a rw ith o u t aw a rr a n t a s lo n g a s th e yh a v e p r o b ab le c aus e t o be l i e ve tha tthe c ont a i ne rhol ds e vi de nc e of ac r i m e . ” I d. ( c i t i ng C a l i f orni av. A c e ve do, 500 U . S . 565, 579- 80, 111 S . C t . 1982, 1991, 114 L . E d. 2d 619 ( 1991) ) . “ P r obabl e c aus e f oras e a r c h e xi s t s w he n unde rthe t ot a l i tyof the c ir c u m s ta n c e s th e r e is af a irp r o b ab ilityth a t c o n tr ab a n d o re v id e n c e o f ac r im e w ill be foun d i n a part i cul arpl ac e. ” I d. (quo t at i on s and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). “ In e xa m i ni ng the t ot a l i tyof the c i r c um s t a nc e s , ar e vi e w i ng c ourtm us tgi ve due w e i ghtt o the of

f i c e r ’ s e xpe r i e nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r i ggm a n, 931 F . 2d 705, 709 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . A nothe re xc e pt i on t o the w a rr a ntr e qui r e m e ntf oras e a r c h i s the

“ pl ai n v i ew ” doctri ne. “ T he ‘ pl ai n v i ew ’ do ctri ne perm i t s aw arrant l es s s ei zure w here (1) an o ff

i ce r i s l aw ful l y l ocat ed i n the pl ac e f rom w hi ch the se i ze d o bj ec t coul d b e pl ai nl y vi ew ed and m usthave a l aw ful ri gh tof ac ce ss t o the obj ec ti t se l f; and (2) the i ncri m i nat i ng char ac t erof the i t em i s i m m edi at el y app ar ent . ” U ni t ed5

S t a t e s v. S m i th, 459 F . 3d 1276, 1290 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , pe t i t i on f orc e rt . f i l e d,

__U . S . L . W . __(N ov . 9, 20 06 ) ( N o. 06 -778 0). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t d e m o n s tr a te , a s th e c o u rt e x p la in e d in its d isp o siti v e o rd er(w h ich ap p ro p riately r elied in p ar t o n th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s fin d in g s) , th at th e p er fo rm an ce o f P etit io n er ’s atto rn ey sa ti sf ied th e C o n stitu ti o n ’s r e qui r e m e nta nd, f

urthe r , c aus e d P e t i t i one rno pr e j udi c e w ha t e ve r . T he out c om e of th is c a s e w o u ld h a v e b e e n th e s a m e h a d c o u n s e l m o v e d th e c o u rt –p r io rto P e titio n e r ’s p le ao f

g u ilty–to s u p p r e s s th e d ru g s s e iz e d f r o m th e au to m o b ile . A m ot i on t o s uppr e s s w oul d ha ve f a i l e d f ortw o r e a s ons . F i r s t , the a ge nt s s a w the drug s i n p l ai n v i ew ; se cond , the they had prob abl e c ause t o searc h the car. T he agent s had se en P et i t i on eratt em ptt o h i de drug s, w hi ch they vi sual l y i dent i fi ed as such. T hey w er e i n a pl ac e they had a ri gh tt o b e – ou t si de the car – and they i mme d i a t e l yi d e n t i f

i e d th e i t e m Pe t i t i o n e ra tt e mp t e d t o h i d e a s c o c a i n e . I n s u m, the se ar ch w as val i d u nd erthe pl ai n v i ew do ctri ne. Itw as al so val i d b ec ause , as the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed, the agent s has prob abl e c ause t o searc h the car. AF F I R ME D.