UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5970

ROSS AVON SELLMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Herbert N. Maletz,

Senior Judge, sitting by designation.

(CR-95-111-WMN)

Argued: March 7, 1997

Decided: June 19, 1997

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and

HALL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Harvey Greenberg, LAW OFFICES OF HARVEY

GREENBERG, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Martin Joseph

Clarke, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lynne A. Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ross Avon Sellman appeals his drug-related convictions and sentence on a variety of grounds. The only issue warranting exposition

is whether an inaccurate description of the car listed in the search

warrant required suppression of the evidence found therein.1

I.

Based on information supplied by a confidential informant, Baltimore City Police Officers Willie Grandy and Darrell Wayne Townsend investigated the illegal narcotic trafficking activities of Ross

Avon Sellman during January 1995. Grandy conducted surveillance

of Sellman's primary place of residence, 2612 Oswego Avenue.

Townsend conducted surveillance in and around 1730 Smallwood

Street, a known "shooting gallery,"2 where Sellman distributed narcotics to his street dealers. On each day of surveillance, Grandy observed

Sellman leave his house carrying a small dark handbag and drive

away in a 1982 black Plymouth four-door vehicle with Maryland

license BMT-002. When Townsend observed Sellman's arrival at the

shooting gallery, he noted that Sellman carried a small dark handbag

and that narcotics trafficking subsequently increased in the vicinity.

On January 23, Grandy and Townsend applied for and received

warrants to search Sellman, the black Plymouth with Maryland

license BMT-002, the shooting gallery, and two other residences --

one of which was Sellman's home. The first search warrant authorized the search of Sellman and 1730 N. Smallwood Street. The sec-

_________________________________________________________________

1 We do not address the remaining issues raised by Sellman as we hold

them to be meritless.

2 A shooting gallery is a house used for the sale and use of narcotics,

specifically heroin.

 2
ond search warrant authorized the search of Sellman, 2224 Walbrook

Avenue, and a 1982 Plymouth, black four-door, with Maryland

license BMT-002. The third search warrant authorized the search of

Sellman, 2612 Oswego Avenue, and a 1982 Plymouth, black fourdoor, with Maryland license BMT-002. Nine days later on January

31, officers from the Baltimore City Police Department prepared to

execute the search warrants simultaneously. After observing Sellman

exit his home carrying the same handbag, Grandy was surprised to see

Sellman get into a blue Cadillac with Maryland license BMT-002 and

drive away. A helicopter monitored Sellman's movements from

above, and Grandy alerted the other officers involved in the execution

of the search warrants.

When the blue Cadillac arrived in the vicinity of the shooting gallery, officers stopped the vehicle. Sellman, the only occupant, was

observed holding a handbag. A search of the handbag yielded fiftyeight bags of heroin with star markings, twenty-one vials of cocaine

with black markings, and a loaded .32 caliber revolver. A search of

the car yielded personal papers in Sellman's name, and a registration

card revealing that the Cadillac was registered to Thomasine Felder,

Sellman's girlfriend, who also lived at 2612 Oswego Avenue.

Prior to trial, Sellman sought to suppress the evidence seized from

the blue Cadillac. Sellman argued that the search warrant upon which

the officers acted did not authorize them to search the blue Cadillac

because the warrant identified the place to be searched as "a 1982

Plymouth, black 4-door [Maryland] tag BMT-002." During the suppression hearing, the Government introduced the three applications

for the search warrants, an affidavit in support of the applications, and

the three warrants issued by the magistrate judge. The district court

found that the warrants for Sellman's person, his residence on

Oswego Avenue, and the black Plymouth were supported by a single

affidavit. The affidavit showed probable cause to believe that: Sellman habitually left 2612 Oswego Avenue in the morning; he drove

a vehicle with Maryland license BMT-002; and he distributed cocaine

and heroin to his street dealers at the shooting gallery. The district

court determined that the officers did not unconstitutionally search the

blue Cadillac and denied the suppression motion. The district court

stated that Sellman's presence in a vehicle displaying the identical

registration tag identified in the search warrant enabled the officers to

 3
believe reasonably that they did not need a separate warrant for the

blue Cadillac, and that the blue Cadillac was the appropriate place to

search.

Sellman appeals the district court's ruling. The question of whether

a district court properly denied a motion to suppress evidence because

police obtained the evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment

is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.3

II.

The Fourth Amendment provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but

upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to

be seized."4 The requirement for particularity "ensures that the search

will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the

character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers

intended to prohibit."5 The particularity requirement is satisfied when

an officer in possession of a search warrant describing a particular

place to be searched can reasonably ascertain and identify the

intended place to be searched.6 Should the description of the place to

be searched prove overbroad or mistaken, however, no Fourth

Amendment violation occurs when the officers executing the search

reasonably believe that the warrant is sufficiently particular and that

they are searching the correct location.7 An erroneous description or

a factual mistake in the search warrant will not necessarily invalidate

the warrant and the subsequent search.8 The officers in the instant

case executed the search warrant issued for the"1982 Plymouth,

black 4-door, with Maryland license BMT-002" on the blue Cadillac

bearing the identical registration tag. We must decide whether the

intervening change in two of the vehicle's identifying characteristics,

the color and model, between the last date the officers observed the

_________________________________________________________________

3 United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 585 (4th Cir. 1994).

4 U.S. Const. amend. IV.

5 Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987).

6 Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925).

7 Garrison, 480 U.S. at 84-9.

8 United States v. Owens, 848 F.2d 462, 463-66 (4th Cir. 1988).

 4
Plymouth and date the magistrate signed the warrant, served to vitiate

the search. We find the Supreme Court's decision in Maryland v.

Garrison9, and our decision inUnited States v. Owens10,instructive in

resolving the question before us.

In Garrison, the Court upheld the validity of a search conducted at

the wrong apartment. The police officers applied for and were issued

a warrant authorizing a search of a premises described as 2036 Park

Heights Avenue, third floor apartment and for the resident of the

apartment, Meril McWebb. Relying on utility company records, the

officers reasonably believed that the third floor contained only one

apartment and that it was occupied by McWebb. The police seized

narcotics and drug paraphernalia from the apartment they were

searching, but they soon realized they were in a second apartment

located on the third floor, which belonged to a different person, Harold Garrison. Garrison was subsequently convicted for violating

Maryland's Controlled Substances Act. The Court affirmed Garrison's conviction, noting that before the officers discovered the factual

mistake, the officers reasonably believed they had been searching

McWebb's apartment. The Court declared that a search warrant must

be reviewed in light of the information available to the officers at the

time they executed the search.11

In Owens, when officers went to execute a search warrant of an

apartment, identified in the warrant as number 336 and said to be

located on the third floor of an apartment building, they found that of

the two apartments located on the third floor, only one was occupied

and neither apartment was numbered 336. Because the affidavit

clearly identified the apartment to be searched as one that was occupied, and an informant confirmed the officers' observations that it had

to be the apartment on the right, the officers searched the apartment

numbered 324. When Owens contested the validity of the search on

the basis that the warrant authorized the search of apartment 336 and

not 324, we held that:

_________________________________________________________________

9 480 U.S. 79 (1987).

10 848 F.2d 462 (4th Cir. 1988).

11 Garrison, 480 U.S. at 88.

 5
 The officers had a reasonable and objective basis on

which to conclude that the warrant authorized a search of

apartment numbered 324. This determination was much

more than a calculated guess and cannot be described as an

effort to conduct a fishing expedition. The officers were justified in using common sense and reliable information

known to them outside the four corners of the warrant and

affidavit to assist in determining the place actually authorized to be searched. They were not prohibited from making

a good faith interpretation of the warrant in light of the

information available to them at the time they acted. . . .

 While the warrant here was facially deficient because an

incorrect apartment number was given, the deficiency was

corrected prior to the search by personal observations and

information on which one could reasonably and in good

faith make a determination of the actual place the warrant

authorized to be searched.12

In the instant case, the application for the search warrant, the supporting affidavit, and the warrant itself identified the vehicle to be

searched as a "1982 Plymouth, black 4 door, MD tag BMT-002."

Unbeknownst to the officers applying for the search warrant, between

the last date of their surveillance, January 12, and the date on which

the magistrate judge signed the warrant, January 23, Sellman purchased the blue Cadillac because the Plymouth had been involved in

an accident. Consequently, on January 31, when the officers began to

execute the search, Grandy was surprised to see Sellman drive away

from his residence in a blue Cadillac. Because the blue Cadillac displayed the identical registration number as the black Plymouth, the

officers stopped the vehicle as planned and searched Sellman and the

blue Cadillac.

We believe that the technical misdescription of the vehicle's color

and make did not render the search of the Cadillac unconstitutional.

The vehicle's registration number, the most visible factor used in the

identification of a specific vehicle identified the blue Cadillac as the

most reasonable place for the officers to search. Furthermore, the

_________________________________________________________________

12 Owens, 848 F.2d at 466 (internal quotations omitted).

 6
facts that Sellman and his residence were listed on the same warrant,

and that the affidavit indicated that Sellman transported drugs from

his residence to the shooting gallery in a vehicle bearing the license

BMT-002, supports our holding that the officers reasonably executed

the search warrant "in light of the information available to them at the

time they acted."13 Accordingly, we find no error in the district court's

denial of Sellman's motion to suppress the evidence seized from the

blue Cadillac.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, Sellman's convictions and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________________________________________

13 Owens, 848 F.2d at 466 (quoting Garrison, 480 U.S. at 85).

 7