### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 22, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 03- 1378 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 02- 0023 3 C R- 4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us JAME S CA SW EL L JO NE S, a. k.a. Jam es Casw ell Banaha, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (J ul y 22 , 200 4) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: In200 2, Jam es Ca sw el l Jo ne s w as a rr es te d ona n ou tst an din g w ar rant f or fa ilure to pay

c hil d su ppor t. B as ed on s ta te m en ts J one s m ad e af te r his a rr es t, the2

pol ic e obt ai ne d ase ar chw ar rant f or Jon es ’ s ho m e an d di sc ove re d f ir earm s inthe hom e. T he re af

te r, Jon es w as ind ic te d f

or f ir earm s vi ola tio ns. Before trial, Jones m oved to su ppress the firear m s as the fruit of an illegal search. Jones argued that the arresting officer delay ed serving the child-su pport
warrant in hopes of arre sting Jones while he wa s com m itting a drug-re lated of fe nse . T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that the of

fi ce r ha d in te nti ona lly

de lay ed se rv ing the a rr es t w ar

rant and h ad

use d th e w ar

rant a s a pr et ex t t o c at chJon es in a dr ug offense. Based on those findin gs, the district court concluded that th e ar rest w as
un co ns ti tu ti on al an d g ran te d t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s. T he Co urt c onsi de rs und er am ixe d st an dard

the gr an t of

am oti on t o supp re ss, r ev ie w ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or a nd i ts ap pli catio n of

lawto tho se f

ac ts d e novo . U nit ed

S tate s v. Ch an tha soux at , 342 F.3 d 1 27 1, 1 27 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
.

“ Su bj ec tiv e int en tio ns p lay

no r ole in or din ar

y , pr oba ble -c au se F ourth Am en dm en t an al y si s.” Whre n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 1 16 S.Ct . 17 69 , 17 74 (19 96 ). In st ead , an a rres t wi ll be up he ldif t he ob jecti ve cir cu m st an ces jus ti fy th e arr es t. Se e A rk an sa s v. S ull ivan, 121 S
. Ct
. 187 6, 187 8 ( 2001 ) (r ej ec tin g th e co nc lus ion that the “ subj ec tiv e int en t” langua ge of Whr enw as nonbin din g di ct a, ina ppl ic ab leTo t h e ex t en t t h at Amador -Gonzalez v. United States, 391 F.2d 308, 314- 15 (5th Cir. 1968), 1 holds that pretext can make an arrest unre asonable , that holding is over ruled by the Supreme Court’s rulin g s in

Whr e n , 1 1 6 S. Ct
. at 1 7 7 4 , an d Su ll iv an , 1 2 1 S. Ct
. at 1 8 7 8
. Se e U n it e d St ate s v. Holloman, 113 F.3d 192, 194 (11th Cir. 1997) (statingthat Whren “c onclusively ref utes the notion” that subjective intent may invalidate police c onduct justified on p ro b ab l e ca use); see also United States v. Causey , 834 F.2d 1179, 1184-85 (5th Cir. 1987) (e n banc) (over ruling Amador- Gonzalez). 3 to a pr et ex tua l arr es t)
. T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in co nsi de ri ng the
ar re sti ng o ff

ic er ’ s su bj ec tiv e int en t i n se rv ing the w ar rant. 1 In Jones’s c ase, the objec tive circum stances are that the arre sting officer dis co ve re d an ou tst an din g w ar rant f or Jon es a nd e xe cu te d th e w ar rant w ith in 3 0 day s. T he w ar

rant w as sti ll va lid
. A lth oughthe of fi ce r did not se rv e the w ar

rant im m ed ia te ly upo n hi s di sc ove ry

of it , de lay in ex ec uti ng a

w ar rant i s no t i tse lf
un la wfu l. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Crav ero , 54 5 F .2d40 6, 4 13 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) (“ [A] susp ect has no constitu tional right to be arre sted earlier than the poli ce choose.” ); see also Whren, 116 S. Ct. at 1776 (statin g that, if probable ca use exists for a seizure, there is no need for m ore balancing analy sis except for seizures c ondu cted in an extraordinary

m anner, e. g., deadly

force ). T he re fo re , be ca

use Jon es ’ s arr es t w as ba se d up on a w ar rant s uppo rt ed

by pr oba ble c au se , his a rr es t w as not unc onst itu tio na l, a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g Jo ne s’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s. REVERSED.