# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 31 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ren dy Con an t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 32 01

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Bru ce Co na nt

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Ju ne 11 , 20 15
Fil ed : Au gu st 26 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, BEAM, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ren dy Fay Co na nt an d Bru ce Ri ch ard Co na nt co nd it io na ll y p l e d g ui lt y to

co ns p ira cy to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21
U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(A)(v ii i). Th ey res erv ed th e ri gh t t o a pp eal th e d en ia l

of th ei r m ot io ns to su pp res s ev id en ce an d fo r a Fra nk s he ari ng

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

Offi cer Vict or W e i r be ga n in ve st ig at in g na rco ti cs cri m es in Ju ly 20 11

. A

W ay ne sv il le

, Mi ss ou ri, po li ce offi cer, he h ad be en in law en fo rcem en t fo r ab ou t 14

y ears , pr im ari ly as a pa tro lm an

. He th en ha d ab ou t 40 ho ur s of tra in in g in na rco ti cs

in ve st ig at io ns

. In Ju ly 20 12

, he pr es en te d th e pr os ecu to r wit h a warra nt to se arch th e

Co na nt s’ ho us e. The a ffi da vi t re ad s:

On 7/ 15 /1 2 CI 2 0 1 1

- 1 2

- 2 who ha s pr ov en rel ia bl e in th e pa st on si x

se pa rat e oc cas io ns , ga ve m e inf or m at ion tha

t Me tha m ph et am in e is be in g di st rib ut ed fro m an d st or ed at th is lo cat io n. CI 20 11 -1 2- 2 to ld m e th at
J a m es Rh od en iz er who li ve s at 72 3 East Mai n St reet in Ri ch l a n d

, pu rch as es qu an ti ti es of Crystal Me t h am ph et am in e fro m Bru ce an d

Ren dy Co na nt who res id e an d own th e pr op ert y at th is ad dr es s an d is in

Pu la sk i Co un ty, MO. It is fu rth er st or ed in a st or ag e un it lo cat ed of f th e 14 0 m il e mar ke r of I-4 4 in Lacl ed e Co un ty. A se arch warra nt was

ex ecu te d i n P ul as ki Co un ty and in th e ci ty of Ric hl an d o n 6 /2 8/ 12 an d

t h e CI ad vi se d m e th at th e crystal m et ha m ph et am in e fo un d in Mr

. Rh od en iz er’s po ss es si on was pu rch as ed fro m Bru ce an d Ren dy Co na nt by Ja m es Rh od en iz er. CI 20 11 -1 2- 2 st at ed th at th ere is en ou gh on ha nd

-2

-fo r sa le s; ho wev er th e bu lk is st or ed at th e st or ag e sh ed in Lacl ed e

Co un ty. CI 20 11 -1 2- 2 fu rth er st at ed th at on or ab ou t 7/ 1 2 /1 2 th e Co na nt ’s bro ug ht a ne w su pp ly of m et ha m ph et am in e to th e are a.

O f fic er W ei r to ld th e pr os ecu to r th at th e in fo rm at io n fro m CI 20 11 -1 2- 2 was n o t

ba se d on fir st ha nd kn owl ed ge , bu t he h ad m et wit h th e pe rs on wit h fir st ha nd

kn owl ed ge th at th e Co na nt s were se ll in g m et h fro m th ei r ho me. Offi cer W ei r

ex pl a i n e d t h at th e CI face d cri m in al ch arg es an d ho pe d to rece iv e fav or ab le

co ns id erat io n fo r co op erat io n, bu t th ere was no ag reem en t. The pr os ecu to r si gn ed th e

ap pl ic at io n an d di d no t te ll Offi cer W ei r to in cl ud e an y ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n. The

pr os ecu to r ha d, in th e pa st

, refu se d to ap pl y fo r warra nt s he th ou gh t la ck ed pr ob ab le

cau se

. The of

fic er si gn ed th e ap pl ic at io n in fro nt of th e jud ge ’s cl erk

, who fo rward ed

it to th e jud ge . The jud ge gra nt ed th e se arch warran t.

The de fen da nt s m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce fro m th e se arch

, an d fro m a la te r

warra nt ba se d on ev id en ce fro m t h e f i r s t se arch

. The y al so req ue st ed a Fra nk s
he ari ng

. The m ag is tra te jud ge de ni ed a Fra nk s he ari ng

. Late r, du rin g th e he ari ng on

th e m ot io ns to su pp res s, Offi cer W ei r te st ifi ed to th e ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n: th e CI

go t th e in fo rm at io n fro m a se co nd pe rs on whi le th ey us ed dr ug s to ge th er, an d th e CI

was su bjec t to cri m in al ch arg es at th e ti m e of th e st at em en t. Offi cer W ei r’s te st im on y
rai se d th e is su e of an in te nt io na l fal se ho od

. The m ag is tra te jud ge is su ed a rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on on su pp res si on in bo th cas es

. Se e Unit ed St a t e s v

. Co na nt

, 20 14

W L 9 40 32 4 (W. D

. M o

. F e b 10 , 2 01 4) ; Unit ed St at es v. Co na nt , 2 01 4 W L 9 40 29 0
(W. D. Mo

. Feb 10

, 20 14 ). The di st ric t co ur t as ke d fo r cl ari fic at io n ab ou t th e Fra nk s

an al y si s in li gh t of Offi cer W ei r’s te st im on y

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Co na nt

, 20 14 W L

94 13 10 (W. D. Mo

. Mar ch 1 1

, 2 0 14 ). The m ag is tra te jud ge is su ed a su pp le m en ta l

rep or t an d reco m

m en da ti on , fin di ng no Fra nk s vi ol at io n be cau se th e of fic er di d no t

act in te nt io na ll y or reck le ss ly to m is le ad th e is su in g jud ge , ag ai n reco m m en di ng

de ni al of th e su pp res si on m ot io n ba se d on a go od -fai th an al y si s. Se e Unit ed St at es

v. Co na nt , 20 14 W L 13 75 45 8 (W.D. Mo. Ma rch 20 , 20 14 ).

-3

-Ado pt in g th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns

to su pp res s. The Co na nt s ap pe al

, arg ui ng th ey de se rv ed a Fr a nk s he ari ng an d

su pp res si on of t he ev id en ce.

Thi s cou rt wou ld rev ie w a de ni al of a Fra nk s he ari ng fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Se e Unit ed St at es v. Ar no ld

, 72 5 F.3 d 89 6, 89 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Howev er, as Bru ce

Co na nt no te s in hi s br ie f—a nd is ap pa ren t— “ a Fra nk s he ari ng was , in effe ct

,

co nd uc t e d ” w he n th e of

fic ers in vo lv ed were qu es ti on ed at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng ,

an d t he di st ric t co ur t “ tre at ed th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng as a Fra nk s he ari ng .”

I

The de fen da nt s ch al le ng e th e d e n i a l o f th ei r m ot io ns to su pp res s ba se d on
Offi cer W ei r’s o mi s s i o n s th at th e CI di d no t ha ve fir st ha nd kn owl ed ge of th e fact s

an d t ha t t he CI was “ wor ki ng off a cas e.”

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s un de rlyin g fact ua l fin di ng s on th es e po in ts fo r

cl ear erro r an d it s le ga l de te rm in at io ns de n o v o

. ” Unit ed St at es v. Ket ze ba ck

, 35 8

F.3 d 98 7, 99 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 4 )

, c i t i n g Orne la s v. Unit ed St at es , 51 7 U.S. 69 0, 69 9
(1 99 6)

. “ Cl ear erro r ex is ts whe re, vi ewin g th e reco rd as a who le

, we are le ft wit h th e

de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at a m is ta ke ha s be en co m m it te d.” Un i t

e d S t a te s v.

Fi nl ey , 61 2 F .3d 99 8, 1 00 2 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

“ A se arch warra nt m ay be in va li d i f t h e is su in g jud ge ’s pr ob ab le cau se
de te rm in at io n was ba se d on an affi da vi t co nt ai ni ng fal se or om it te d st at em en ts m ad e

kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y or wit h reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th .” Unit ed St at es

v. Rei nho lz

, 24 5 F.3 d 76 5, 77 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ), ci ti ng Fr an ks v. Dela wa re , 43 8 U.S.

15 4, 1 71 (19 78 ).

-4

-To pr ev ai l on a Fran ks cl ai m th e de fen da nt s m us t sh ow: (1 ) th at a fal se
st at em en t kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y , or wit h reck le ss di sr eg ard for the

tru th

, was in cl ud ed in th e affi da vi t; an d (2 ) th at th e affi da vi t’s rem ai ni ng

co nt en t is in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau se

. The sa m e an al y si s
ap pl ie s to om is si on s of fact

. The de fen da nt m us t sh ow: (1 ) th at fact s

were om it te d wit h th e in te nt to m ak e, or in reck le ss di sr eg ard of whe th er th ey m ak e, th e affi d a v i t mi s le ad in g; an d (2 ) th at th e affi da vi t, if

su pp le m en te d by th e om it te d in fo rm at io n, co ul d no t su p p o r t a fin di ng of pro ba bl e cau se

.

Id

. at 77 4. “ In de te rm in in g if an affi an t’s st at em en ts were m ad e wit h reck le ss
di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th

, th e te st is whe th er, after vi ewin g al l th e ev id en ce, th e affi an t

m us t ha ve en te rta in ed se rio us do ub ts as to th e tru th of hi s st at em en ts or ha d ob vi ou s

r eas on s to do ub t th e accu racy of th e in fo rm at io n he rep or te d.” Unit ed St at e s v

. McI nt yr e , 64 6 F

. 3 d 1 1 07

, 11 14 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ Rec kl es sn es s, ho wev er, m ay be

in ferr ed fro m th e fact of om is si on of in fo rm at io n fro m an affi da vi t

. . . whe n th e

m at eri al om it te d wou ld ha ve be en cle arl y cri ti cal to th e fi nd in g o f pr ob ab le cau se .”

Id

. “ In ge ne ral

, no on e fact or ne ces sa ril y do om s a se arch warra nt .” Unit ed St at es v.

Glo ver , 75 5 F.3 d 81 1, 81 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ Cas es th at te st th e su ffi ci en cy of

affi da vi ts fo r warra nt s ob ta i n e d a r e hi gh ly fact sp eci fic

, bu t in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e

in fo rm an t’s cr ed ib il it y

or p ot en ti al bi as is cru ci al .” Id

.

Th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d th at Offi cer W ei r m is le d th e is su in g jud g e
ab ou t th e CI’s so ur ce of in fo rm at io n, bu t no t kn owi ng l y a n d i n te nt io na ll y or wit h

reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th

. Offi cer W ei r te st ifi ed he m et wit h an d sp ok e to th e 1

CI face

- t o

- f

a c e

. The CI go t th e in fo rm at io n ab ou t dr ug s at th e Co na nt s’ res id en ce

In th e su pp le m en ta l rep or t an d re co m m en da tio n, th e m ag is tra te jud ge an al y zes 1

th e Fra nk s cl ai m s by ap pl y in g pr in ci pl es fro m Leo n go od -fai th -ex cep ti on cas es

. The
ba se s fo r ob

jecti ve ly reaso na bl e rel ia nc e o n an ot he rwis e in va li d s earc h war ran t d o

no t gu id e a d e c i s io n ab ou t an affi an t’s reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th (o r kn owi ng

an d in te nt io na l st at em en t or om is si on ). Se e Unit ed St at es v. Ja co bs

, 98 6 F.2 d 12 31

, 12 35 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3) (“ [U]nde r Leo n, a F ran ks vi ol at io n i s n ot ex cu se d.” ).

-5

-whi le us in g dr ug s wit h th e se co nd pe rs on

. Offi cer W ei r sp ok e to th e se co nd pe rs on
ab ou t hi s or he r fir st ha nd kn owl ed ge of th e Co na nt s’ dr ug act iv it ie s, co nf irming th e

CI’s s ta te m en ts . Office r W ei r sa id he om it te d in fo rm at io n abo ut th e se co nd pe rs on

fo r th is pe rs on ’s sa fet y , refe rri ng to a rece nt as sa ul t con ne ct ed to th e o n- go in g d ru g

act iv it ie s. Offi cer W ei r sa id th e CI wa s s u b je c t t o cri m in al ch arg es at th e ti m e, an d

he di d no t pu t th is in th e affi da vi t. Offi cer W ei r te st ifi ed th at he to ld th e pr os ecu to r

th is ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n whe n pr es en ti ng th e aff id av it for a se arch warra nt

. The

pr os ecu to r di d n ot tel l h im to ad d t he om it te d i nf

or m at io n.

In Rein ho lz

, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y fo un d th at th e of fic er “ reck le ss ly m is le d

th e is su in g ju dg e b y

m is rep res en ti ng th e na tu re of hi s so ur ce.” Rei nho lz , 24 5 F .3d

at 77 4. The affi da vi t th ere st at ed th at th e of fic er ha d in fo rm at io n fro m a “ co nf id en ti al

an d rel ia bl e s o u r c e ” th at th e de fen da nt was “ in vo lv ed in th e us e of

m et ha m ph et am in e” an d “ m a y al so be in vo lv ed in th e di st rib ut io n of

m et ha m ph et am in e.” Id

. at 77 1. Thi s in fo rm at io n was fals e be cau se th e so ur ce was

“ a lo cal ph arm aci st who kn ew on ly th at Rei nh ol z pu rch as ed io di ne crystal s.” Id

. at

77 3, 77 5. The so ur ce was no t co nf id en ti al

, ha vi ng dr op pe d hi s req ue st fo r an on y m it y

. Id

. at 77 4. Fu rth er, “ hi s rel ia bi li ty was no t rel at ed to an y pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of or

co rro bo rat ed in fo rm at io n co nc ern in g Rei nh ol z’s m et ha m ph et am in e us e.” Id

. The

affi da vi t “ im

pl ie d th at hi s so ur ce ha d kn owl ed ge of Rei n h o lz ’s dr ug act iv it ie s an d

th at in de pe nd en t p ol ic e in ve st ig at io n c or ro bo rat ed th e in fo rm an t’s d ecl arat io ns . In

fact

, po li ce in ve st ig at io n m erel y co rro bo rat ed th e ph arm aci st ’s de sc rip t i o n o f

Rei nh ol z’s au to m ob il e an d l ic en se pl at e.” Id

.

The Co na nt s st res s a si m il ari ty to Rein ho lz : th e m ag is tra te jud ge he re
de te rm in ed th at Offi cer W ei r’s st at em en t was m is le ad in g b e c a us e it im pl ie d th e

in fo r mat i o n was fir st ha nd

. The Co na nt s, ho wev er, ig no re m an y di ss im il ari ti es to

Rein ho lz : Offi cer W ei r ’s so ur ce was co nf id en ti al

, ha d be en rel ia bl e si x pr ev io us

ti m es , an d ga ve de ta il e d in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e Co na nt s se ll in g m et h. Alt ho ug h

Offi cer W ei r’s st at em en t th at th e CI was “ co nf id en ti al an d rel ia bl e” was m is le ad in g,

-6

-un li ke th e st at em en ts in Rein ho lz th is st at em en t was no t fal se

. Se e id

. at 77 5 (“ Offi cer

Po da ny’ s affi da vi t in cl u d e d fal se st at em en ts m ad e wit h reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e

tru th .”). M o r e o v e r , Offi cer W ei r co rro bo rat ed th e CI’s he ars ay st at em en ts wit h a

pe rs on who ha d fir st ha nd kn owl ed ge

. In Rein ho lz th e po li ce ha d no st at em en t fro m

an y in fo rm an t t ha t Re in ho lz was u si ng or d is tri bu ti ng m et h.

The m ag is tra te jud ge di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at Offi cer W ei r act ed on ly

ne gl ig en tl y

. “ [E]val ua ti ng an affi an t’s st at e of m in d req ui res [th is co ur t] to vi ew al l

of th e ev id en ce.” Fi nl

e y , 6 1 2 F.3 d at 10 03 n.7

. Offi cer W ei r te st ifi ed he di d no t

in cl ud e in fo rm at io n on th e se co nd pe rs on du e to a po te nt ia l th reat of da ng er. He al so

te st ifi ed th at he m et w it h an d ta lk ed wit h th e se co nd pe rs on wit h fir st ha nd

kn owl ed ge , c o r r ob or at in g th e CI’s in fo rm at io n. Alt ho ug h th e affi da vi t was

m is le ad in g, “ th e in fere nc e su gg es te d in th at pa rag rap h was su pp or te d by ot he r fact s

kn own by [Offi cer Wei r] at th at ti m e.” Id

. at 10 03

. Fu rth er, fai lu re to in cl ud e

in fo rm at io n th at an in fo rm an t is “ wor ki ng of f a ch arg e” is mi s le ad in g if th e

arra ng em en t is “ un us ua l an d hi g h l y c oe rci ve .” Ar no ld

, 72 5 F.3 d at 89 9 (“ [W] e

di sa gr ee wit h Arn ol d’s arg um en t

. . . th at a m is rep res en ta ti on oc cu rred whe n th e

affi da vi t om it te d th at th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t was ‘w or ki ng of f a ch arg e.’”). Here,

no pr om is es ha d be en m ad e to th e CI, an d th e pr os ecu to r ha d no t to ld th e CI th at th e

CI’s in fo rm at io n wou ld wor k of f a cas e. Fi na ll y , th e m ag is tra te jud ge was tro ub le d

th at Offi cer W ei r rel ie d on th e pr os ecu to r’s in st ru ct io n to de te rm in e whe th er to add

th e om it te d in fo rm at io n. Howev er, in Fra nk s th e Su pr em e Co ur t sa id “ th e de li be rat e

fal si ty or reck le ss di sr eg ard who se im pe ach m en t is pe rm it te d to da y is on ly th at of th e

affi an t.” Fr an ks

, 43 8 U.S. at 17 1. Fo r th es e reas on s, thi s cou rt is no t “ le ft wit h th e

d e f i ni te an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at a m is ta ke ha s be en co m m it te d.” Se e Fi

nl ey , 6 1 2

F.3 d at 10 03

.

Si nc e “ Fra nk s do es no t ap pl y to ne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on s,” Uni te d St at es

v. Co le man , 34 9 F.3 d 10 77

, 10 85 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ), th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y fo un d no

Fra nk s vi ol at io n.

-7

-II.

Th e de fen da nt s as se rt th at th e fir st se arch warra nt was no t su pp or te d b y

pr ob ab le cau se

. The m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in ed th at

, “ reg ard le ss of th e ou tc om e of

an y pr ob ab le cau se an al y si s, th e go od -fai th ex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry ru le ap pl ie s

in th is cas e.” “ On ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d it s de te rm in at io n of pr ob ab le cau se an d th e

ap pl ic at io n of th e Leo n ex cep ti on de no vo .” Unit ed St at es v

. J a c k so n , 78 4 F.3 d

12 27 , 12 31 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

“ The Fo ur th Am en dm en t co m m an ds th at no warra nt s sh al l is s u e , b u t up on

p r o b ab le cau se , su pp or te d by Oath or affi rm at io n.” Id

. “ Und er th e go od -fa i t h

ex cep ti on , ev id en ce se iz ed pu rs ua nt to a se arch warra nt la ter de te rm in ed to be in va li d,

wil l no t be su pp res se d if th e ex ecu ti ng of fic er’s rel ia nc e up o n t h e w a r ran t was
ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

. The co ur t m us t lo ok at th e ob

jecti ve ly as cert ai na bl e qu es ti on

of whet he r a rea so na bl y

well tra in ed of

fic er wou ld ha ve kn own th at th e se arch was

il le ga l de sp it e a jud ge ’s is su an ce of th e warra nt .” Id

. Se e ge ne ra ll

y Unit ed St at es v.

Leo n , 46 8 U.S. 89 7, 92 0- 21 (1 98 4)

. The go od -fai th ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y in fo ur
si tu at io ns :

(1 ) whe n t he affi da vi t o r te st im on y su pp or ti ng th e warra nt co nt ai ne d a
fal se st at em en t m ad e kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y or wit h reck le ss di sr eg ard for it s t ru th , th us m is le ad in g t he is su in g ju dg e; ( 2 ) w he n th e is su in g jud ge “ who ll y ab an do ne d hi s jud ic ia l ro le ” in
is su in g t he warran t; (3 ) whe n th e affi da vi t in su pp or t of th e warra nt is “ so la ck in g in in di ci a of pr ob ab le cau se as to ren d er of fic ia l be li ef in it s ex is te nc e en ti rel y

un reas on ab le ;” an d (4 ) whe n th e warra nt is “ so faci al ly de fic ie nt ” th at no po li ce of fic er

co ul d re as on ab ly pres um e th e warra nt to be va li d.

Id

. , ci ti ng Leo n , 46 8 U.S. at 92 3.

-8

-The Co na nt s arg ue th at th e m is le ad in g affi da vi t de feat s Leo n

. Howev er,

Fra nk s “ se t fo rth a rat io na le fo r su pp res si ng ev id en ce ob ta in ed pu rs ua nt to a se arch

warra nt ” whe re “ kn owi ng or reck le ss fal si ty of th e affi da vi t” is at is su e. Leo n , 46 8

U.S. at 91 4- 15

. A di st ric t co ur t m ay us e a go od -fai th an al y si s af te r fin di n g no

kn owi ng or reck le ss fal si ty. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Pluc ke tt

, 46 6 F.3 d 62 6, 62 9- 30 (8 th

Ci r. 20 06 ) (aft er fin di ng no Fra nk s vi ol at io n, Leo n ’s go od -fai th an al y si s de te rm in es

va li di ty of warra nt ). As di sc us se d ab ov e, th e m ag is tra te jud ge di d no t cl earl y err in

fin di ng no kn owi ng or reck le ss fal si ty he re. Thu s, th e affi da vi t do es no t pr ev en t us e

of Leo n

.

Thi s co ur t lo ok s to th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces in as se ss in g th e ob jecti ve

reas on ab le ne ss of an of

fic er’s ex ecu ti on of a w a rran t, “ in cl ud in g an y in fo rm at io n

kn own to th e of

fic er bu t no t pr es en te d to th e is su i n g ju d g e

. ” Ja ck so n , 7 84 F.3 d at

12 31

. Offi cer W ei r t e s t i f i e d th at he ne ve r ha d an y fo rm al tra in in g on dr aft in g an

affi da vi t fo r a se arch warra nt

, al th ou gh he ha d be en wor ki ng na rco ti cs in ve st ig at io ns

fo r a y ear, and ha d app li ed for ab ou t 5 0 s earc h war ran ts . He tes ti fie d h e pe rs on al ly

sp ok e wit h bo th th e CI an d th e se co nd pe rs on , bu t di d no t in cl u d e a l l o f th is

in fo rm at io n fo r th e se co nd pe rs on ’s sa fet y

. He to ld th e pr os ecu to r ab ou t th is an d was

no t in st ru ct ed to ad d in fo rm at io n to th e affi da vi t. He kn ew th at th e CI ha d pr ov id ed

in fo rm at io n in th e pa st res ul ti ng in th e se iz ur e of il le ga l dr ug s si x ti m es , ev en th ou gh

hi s affi da vi t in cl ud ed th e co nc lu si on th at he ha d p ro vi de d o nl y rel ia bl e in fo rm at io n
si x ti m es

. Alt ho ug h he wit hh el d in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e so ur ce of hi s in fo rm at io n, hi s
rel at iv e in ex pe rie nc e, th e pr os ecu to r’s ap pr ov al of th e ap pl ic at io n, an d th e ad di ti on al

in fo rm at io n no t in th e a f f i d a v i t m ad e it ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le fo r Offi cer W ei r to

ho ne st ly be li ev e th at th e se a r ch warra nt was va li d. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Cl ay , 64 6

F.3 d 11 24

, 11 27 -2 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (fi nd in g of fic er’s act io ns ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le

whe re of fic er “ co ns ul te d wit h at to rn ey p r i o r to se ek in g th e warra nt ,” “ in te rv ie wed

th e CI in p ers on ,” an d “ in de pe nd en tl y co rro bo rat ed ” th e CI’s i nf or m at io n) ; Unit

ed

St at es v. Perr y , 53 1 F .3d 66 2, 6 66 n.6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Ano th er fa ct or th at ad ds to

-9

-th e reas on ab le ne ss of [an of fic er’s] be li ef th at t h e a f f i da vi t was no t so la ck in g in

pr ob ab le cau se was th e co un ty pr os ecu to r’s de te rm in at io n th at th e affi da vi t pr ov id ed

pr ob ab le cau se fo r th e se arch .”); U ni te d St at es v. Ha ll um , 40 7 F.3 d 94 2, 94 7 (8 th

Ci r. 20 05 ) (fi nd in g go od -fai th ex cep ti on ap pl ie d to affi da vi t la ck in g in fo rm at io n
ab ou t in fo rm an t’s rel ia bi li ty whe n of fic er was in ex pe rie nc ed

, pr os ecu to r rep res en te d

th at th e a f

fid av it es ta bl is he d pr ob ab le cau se , an d of fic er ha d fu rn is he d ad di ti on al

co rro bo rat in g i nf

or m at io n t o p ro se cu to r no t i nc lu de d i n a ffi da vi t). 2

* * * * * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Si nc e th e fir st se arch warra nt was no t in va li d, th is co ur t ne ed no t ad dr es s th e 2

Co na nt s’ “ f

r u i t o f t he po is on ou s tre e” arg um en t ab ou t th e se co nd an d th ird se arch

warra nt s.

-1 0-