FILED U.S. COURT OF AP PEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C UIT MAY 25 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN 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. 05- 12550 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 2 1 0 7 9 - C V - K MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f- A p p e lle e , v ersu s ON E P I E C E OF R E AL P R OP E R T Y L O C A T E D A T 5 8 0 0 S W 7 4 T H A V E N U E , M IA M I, F L O R ID A , m o re p art i cu l arl y desc ri bed as L ot3, B l ock 3 of C am ner E st at es ac cordi ng t o the P l atB oo k 5 8, atpage 21 of the pu bl i c re cords of D ade C ou nt y, F l ori da t oge the rw i th a l l a ppur t e na nc e s the r e t o a n d a ll im p r o v e m e n ts th e r e o n , D e fe n d a n t, S T E V E N H A B A N , C la im a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 25, 2006)2

B efo re B A R K E T T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S t even H aban, the ow ner of the prop er ty i n q uesti on , appeal s the di stri ct c o u r t’s g r a n t o f

s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in fa v o ro f th e g o v e r n m e n t in a n in r e m c iv il for fe i tur e a c t i on, 21 U . S . C . § 881( a ) ( 7) . T he G ove r nm e nta l l e ge d i n i t s c om pl a i nt thatthe prop er ty had been used t o com m i tor fa ci l i t at e the com m i ss i on of a vi ol a t i on of

the C ontr ol l e d S ubs t a nc e s A c t . P ol i c e of f i c e r s i nve s t i ga t i ng a m ar i j uan- grow i ng op er ati on cond uct ed a w arra nt l es s s earc h o f H aban’ s r es i dence a n d lo c a te d 8 4 m a r iju a n ap la n ts , 7 6 7 g r a m s o f m a r iju a n a , a n d $ 4 5 ,0 0 0 in c a s h . O n a ppe a l , H aba n f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha the vol unt a r i l y c ons e nt e d t o the s e a r c h of hi s hous e a nd s e e ks s uppr e s s i on of th e m a r iju a n ae v id e n c e fo u n d th e r e in . “A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r u lin g o n am o tio n to s uppr e s s pr e s e nt s am i xe d que s t i on of l a w a nd fa c t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Z a pa t a , 180 F . 3d 12 37 , 12 40 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). W e a cc eptthe di stri ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi nd i ng s a s true unl es s the fi nd i ng s are show n t o b e c l earl y e rr on eous. Id. “ [A ] l l fa ct s are construed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the prevai l i ng party bel ow . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B e r va l di , 226 F . 3d 1256, 1262 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a ppl i c a t i on o f th e la w to th e fa c ts is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . I d .

“ C re di bi l i ty det er m i nat i on s are typi ca l l y the prov i nce of the fa ctfi nd er3

beca use the fa ctfi nd erpers on al l y obser ves the t es t i m on y a nd i s thu s i n a bett er po si t i on than a revi ew i ng courtt o ass es s the cr edi bi l i ty of w i t ness es . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . R a m ir e z - C h ile l, 2 8 9 F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t a

“ tri al j u d g e' s ch o i ce o f w h o m t o b el i ev e i s co n cl u si v e o n th e ap p el l at e co u rtu n l ess the j udge c r e di t s e xc e e di ngl y i m pr oba bl e t e s t i m ony . ” I d. ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i ons a nd pu nctuat i on om i tt ed) ( em ph as i s i n the ori gi nal ). I n th is c a s e , th e m a g is tr a te fo u n d th a t th e te s tim o n y o f H ab a n a n d h is g ir lf r ie n d w a s n o t c r e d ib le , in lig h t o f th e ird e n ia ls a n d m in im iz a tio n s o f th e ir parti ci pat i on i n any i l l egal ac t i vi ty. S peci fi ca l l y, am on g o ther thi ng s, the court no t ed thatthey c l ai m ed thatm uch o f the m ar i j uana w as for per sonal use a nd deni ed a n y p r io rk n o w le d g e a b o u t th e m a r iju a n a , b u t th a t ( 1 ) H ab a n h a d a d m itte d to g r o w in g 3 6 p o u n d s o f

m a r iju a n ao v e r9 m o n th s , w o r th $ 2 1 6 ,0 0 0 , a n d it w o u ld ha ve be e n “ vi r tua l l y i m pos s i bl e ” forhi m t o c ons um e tha ta m ountof m a r i j ua na , ( 2) the r e s i de nc e s m e l l e d of m a r i j ua na , a nd ( 3) the r e w e r e m a r i j ua naa nd gr ow i ng a ppa r a tus e s thr oughoutthe hous e . C onve r s e l y , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge c r e di t e d the te s tim o n y o f

th e p o lic e o f

f ic e r s a n d , b a s e d o n th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , ul t i m a t e l y found tha tH aba n ha d gi ve n vol unt a r i l y c ons e nt e d t o the s e a r c h a nd vo l un t ar i l y w ai ved h i s M i ra nd a r i gh t s. B ec ause the po l i ce offi ce r’ s t es t i m on y w as no texce edi ng l y i m prob abl e, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n fi nd i ng her c re di bl e,4

a nd, thus , di d note rrby f i ndi ng tha tH aba n vol unt a r i l y c ons e nt e d t o the s e a r c h of h is h o m e . H a ba n ne xta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi m ade novo e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g o n h is m o tio n s to s u p p r e s s th e p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e a n d h is c onfe s s i on. H e c onc e de s tha tthe S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha tadi s tr i c tc our ti s not r e qui r e d t o c onduc tade novo e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng on am ot i on t o s uppr e s s w he n a m a gi s tr a t e j udge ha s c onduc t e d a n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng, buthe a s s e r t s tha tthe i nst antca se i s di sti ng ui shabl e. H e a ss er t s thatthe S up re m e C ou rton l y has c o n s id e r e d th is q u e s tio n in r e la tio n to ac o n fe s s io n , w h e r e a s , h e r e h e s e e k s to supp re ss ph ys i ca l evi dence. A l t er nat i vel y, he ar gu es thatthe S up re m e C ou rt shou l d o verrul e the exi sti ng prec edent . F i nal l y, H aban cont ends thatthe di stri ct c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i ons w i thoutahe a r i ng be c a us e the p o l i ce o ffi cers’ t est i m o n y w as co n trad i ct o ry. A di s tr i c tc our tj udge m a y de s i gna t e am a gi s tr a t e t o c onduc ts uppr e s s i on he a r i ngs , butm us t“ m a ke ade novo de t e r m i na t i on of thos e por t i ons of

the r e por tor s pe c i f i e d pr opos e d f

i ndi ngs orr e c om m e nda ti ons t o w hi c h obj e c t i on i s m a de . ” 28 U . S . C . § 636( b) ( 1) ( B ) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha t“ the s t a tut e c a l l s forade n o v o d e t e r mi n a t i o n , n o tad e n o v o h e a r i n g . ” U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ra d d a t z , 4 4 7 U . S. 667, 674, 100 S . C t . 2406, 2411, 65 L . E d. 2d 424 ( 1980) . T he C our tnot e d tha tthe5

d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y , in its d is c r e tio n , o p t to c o n d u c t ad e n o v o e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g . I d. a t676, 100 S . C t . a t2413. W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha thol di ng, not i ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s t a tut or y obl i ga t i on i s s a t i s f i e d “ a s l ong a s the j udge , r a the rtha n the m a gi s tr a t e , e xe r c i s e s ‘ ul t i m a t e a dj udi c a t or y pow e r . ’ ” P r of f i ttv. W a i nw r i ght , 685 F .2 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) . B e c a u s e th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d to c o n d u c t ad e n o v o e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g w h e n ap a r ty o bje c ts to am a g is tr a te ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g H ab a n ad e n o v o e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g . F i nal l y, H aban fi l ed a m ot i on i n the di stri ctcourtfor l ea ve t o fi l e a supp l em ent al answ ert o the com pl ai nt , as se rti ng thatcol l at er al es t op pel w as an af fi rm ati ve defense thathad n otbeen avai l abl e a tthe t i m e w hen h e f i l ed hi s i ni t i al answ er . S peci fi ca l l y, he ar gu ed that , si nce the t i m e w hen h e f i l ed hi s i ni t i al a n s w e r , th e Fl o r i d as t a t e c o u r th a d g r a n t e d h i s mo t i o n s t o s u p p r e s s th e s a me e v id e n c e in ac r im in a l p r o c e e d in g s te m m in g f r o m th e s a m e a c tiv ity . C ons e que nt l y , H aba n s ought , e s s e nt i a l l y , t o e nfor c e the s t a t e c our tr ul i ng i n the fe dera l proceedi ng s. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on , and, on appeal , H aban a r g u e s th a t w e h a v e a c c e p te d ap o lic y o f lib e r a l a m e n d m e n ts in r e g a r d to s uppl e m e nt a l pl e a di ng, a nd thus , be c a us e the r e w a s no good r e a s on forde ny i ng l e a ve t o s uppl e m e ntapl e a di ng, the di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng6

the m ot i on. H e a s s e r t s tha tthe r e w oul d ha ve be e n no pr e j udi c e t o the gove r nm e nt d u e to th e a m e n d e d p le a d in g , a n d as u p p le m e n ta l p le a d in g w a s th e a p p r o p r ia te ve hi c l e fora s s e r t i ng the de fe ns e of c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l . N e xt , he a r gue s tha the onl y ne e de d t o s how tha tthe c l a i m w a s pot e nt i a l l y m e r i t or i ous , ornotf ut i l e , a nd tha tac l a i m tha tm a y s ur vi ve am ot i on t o di s m i s s i s notf ut i l e . H e s t a t e s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t a p p e a r e d to f in d th a t h is c la im w a s f

u tile , b u t th e c a s e to w h ic h it ci t ed d i d n o tst an d fo r th e p ro p o si t i o n fo r w h i ch i tw as o ffered . F i n al l y, h e arg u es, a ppl y i ng F l or i dal a w , a l l the e l e m e nt s of c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l a r e pr e s e nti n the in s ta n t c a s e . F ed eral R u l e o f C i v i l P ro ced u re 1 5 (d ) p ro v i d es: U pon m ot i on of

apa r ty the c our tm a y , upon r e a s ona bl e not i c e a nd up on such t er m s a s are j ust , perm i tthe party t o ser ve a s up pl em ent al pl ea di ng se tt i ng forth tra nsac t i on s or occ urre nces or event s w hi ch ha ve ha ppe ne d s i nc e the da t e of the pl e a di ng s oughtt o be supp l em ent ed. P er m i ss i on m ay be grant ed even tho ug h the ori gi nal pl ea di ng i s def

ec t i ve i n i t s s t at em entof a c l ai m for r el i ef or defe nse. If the c our tde e m s i ta dvi s abl e tha tthe a dve r s e pa r ty pl e a d t o the supp l em ent al pl ea di ng , i tshal l so order, spec i fy i ng the t i m e there for. F ed. R . C i v. P . 15 (d). T he di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of R ul e 15 i s r evi ew ed for a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . D a v e n p o r t v . U n ite d S ta te s , 2 1 7 F .3 d 1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 3 n .4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e h a v e a c c e p te d ap o lic y o f lib e r a l a m e n d m e n ts a n d s u p p le m e n ts to the pl ea di ng s und erR ul e 15. S ee H arri s v. G ar ner, 21 6 F . 3d 97 0, 98 4 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) .7

H ow ever , there i s no err or here. B ec ause thi s C ou rthel d, i n an earl i er a ppe a l i n thi s c a s e , tha tas t a t e c our t ’ s r ul i ng on am ot i on t o s uppr e s s w a s not bi nd i ng on the fe dera l court , the l aw -of- the-c as e doctri ne barre d the di stri ct c our tf r om r e c ons i de r i ng the i s s ue . U pon c a r e f ul r e vi e w of

the r e c or d on a ppe a l a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the pa r t i e s ’ br i e fs , w e di s c e r n no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or in a n y o f th e c la im s a s s e r te d . A F F I R M E D .