# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 24 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Mar cu s Al le n

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Ju ly 7, 20 16 Fil ed : J ul y

12 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, BOW MAN, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

A jury fou nd Marc us All en gu il ty of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) , 92 4( e); po ss es si ng w i t h i n t e nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne , crac k

co cai ne , and m et ha m

ph et am in e, 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C) ; an d p os se ss in g a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e, 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c ) ( 1 ) ( A). TheDis tri ct Co ur t se nt en ced All en to a to ta l of 36 0 m on th s in pr is on an d 6 y ears of 1

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. In th is ap pe al , All en ch al le ng es th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed fro m hi s res id en ce, th e de ni al of a he ari ng un de r Fran ks v. Dela ware, 43 8 U.S. 15 4 (1 97 8) , an d th e ex cl us io n of th e se arch -warra nt ap pl ic at io n fro m ev id en ce at tri al

.

W e fi nd no erro r in th e Dis tri ct Co ur t’s d en ia l of Allen ’s m ot io n to su pp res s. The la w-en fo rcem en t of fic ia l’s warra nt affi da vi t co ns is te d of de ta il ed an d

co rro bo rat ed in fo rm at io n from a co nf id en ti al so ur ce. T he swo rn affi da vi t pro vi de d

a su bs ta nt ia l ba si s fo r fin di ng pr ob ab le cau se —“ a fai r pr ob ab il it y th at co nt rab an d or

ev id en ce of a cri m e” wou ld be fo un d at th e res id en ti al ad dr es s. Ill in oi s v. Gate s, 46 2 U.S. 21 3, 23 8 (1 98 3)

. And co nt rary to All en ’s arg um en ts , th e Mag is tra t e J u d g e’s fai lu re to si gn th e jura t on th e warra nt ap p l i c a t i o n di d no t ren de r th e warra nt de fect iv e—m

uc h le ss so de fect iv e th at no po li ce of fic er co ul d reas on a bl y ha ve pr es um ed th e warra nt was va li d— gi ve n th at th e at te st in g la w-en fo rcem en t o ffi cer

was swo rn an d si gn ed b o t h t h e a pp li cat io n an d th e affi da vi t in th e pr es en ce of th e Mag is tra te Ju dg e, who al so si gn ed th e at ta ch ed s u p p or ti ng affi da vi t. See Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 63 F.3 d 76 6, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ), cert

. de ni ed , 51 6 U.S. 10 63 (1 99 6)

. In ad di ti on , a da te erro r in th e warra nt affi da vi t was an in co ns eq ue nt ia l typo gr ap hi cal

erro r, an d th e fil e-s ta m

p da te of th e warra nt (a da y aft er it s act ua l ex ecu ti on ) di d no t

co m pr om is e th e pr ob ab le -cau se fin di ng

. See Uni te d St at es v. So lo m on , 43 2 F.3 d 82 4, 82 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ); se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v. W ak er, 53 4 F.3 d 16 8, 17 1 (2 nd Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e da ti ng erro rs in an of fic er’s affi da vi t an d

warra nt “ were ha rm le ss be cau se each do cu m en t in whi ch th ey oc cu rred co nt ai ne d

accu rat e in fo rm at io n fr om whi ch on e co ul d e as il y

est ab li sh th e in te nd ed da te s” ).

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.
-2

-Fu rth er, All en fai le d to m ak e a su b s ta nt ia l sh owi ng su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy a

Fran ks he ari ng , gi ve n th e ab se nc e of an y ev id en ce of de li be r a t e fal se ho od s or a reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th th at wou ld in va li da te th e se arch warra nt

. See Uni te d St at es v. Luc ca, 37 7 F.3 d 92 7, 93 1 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 4)

. Fi na ll y , we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e Dis tri ct Co ur t’s ch al le ng ed ev id en ti ary ru li ng

. See Uni te d St at es v. Esp in oz a, 68 4 F.3 d 76 6, 77 8 (8 th Ci r.) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), cert

. de ni ed , 13 3 S. Ct

. (2 01 2)

.

W e affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t an d de ny Al l e n ’s pe nd in g

m ot io ns

.

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

-3

-