UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5165

LEON ANAPOLE HICKMAN, a/k/a Alpo,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CR-94-118-R)

Submitted: April 9, 1996

Decided: April 22, 1996

Before HALL, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Anthony F. Anderson, Melissa W. Friedman, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Joseph

W. H. Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Leon A. Hickman was convicted of contempt in Juvenile and

Domestic Relations Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for failure to pay child support. He filed a notice of appeal to the Roanoke

City Circuit Court, and that court set a $10,000 cash bond. Because

Hickman did not post his appeal bond, however, he served his sentence for contempt and his appeal was never perfected. Unbeknownst

to Hickman, his case was mistakenly placed upon the circuit court's

appeal docket. When he failed to appear, the court issued a capias for

his arrest at the request of the Commonwealth's Attorney.1

After four unsuccessful attempts to serve the capias, Roanoke

police received information regarding Hickman's whereabouts and

arrested him after a brief chase. The arresting officers were members

of the vice bureau; they executed the warrant because they believed

Hickman was a drug dealer and they expected to catch him in possession of drugs. A search incident to Hickman's arrest revealed he possessed crack cocaine.

Following a hearing in the federal district court, Hickman's motion

to suppress the evidence seized from him following his arrest was

denied. Hickman entered a guilty plea for distribution of cocaine base,

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1988); 21 U.S.C.A.§ 841(b)(1)(B) (West

Supp. 1995); he reserved for appellate review the denial of his motion

to suppress. Hickman alleges that the good faith exception to the

exclusionary rule should not apply because the court issuing the arrest

warrant had no jurisdiction and because the officers executing the

warrant did not act in good faith such that his arrest was a mere pretext for the officers to search him for illegal drugs.

This Court reviews the district court's legal conclusions de novo,

but reviews the factual determinations made by the district court on

suppression issues under a clearly erroneous standard. United States

_________________________________________________________________

1 In Virginia a capias is the functional equivalent of an arrest warrant.

See Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-80 (Michie 1995).

 2
v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 926

(1992).

To deter illegal police conduct, evidence seized in violation of

Fourth Amendment generally is not admissible at trial. Elkins v.

United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223 (1960). The threshold question is

whether the evidence is the product of illegal government conduct.

New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 19 (1990). Officers' mistaken determinations may be excused if reasonable and made in good faith.

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 184 (1990). The subjective motivation of officers is irrelevant. United States v. George, 971 F.2d

1113, 1123 (4th Cir. 1992). Even if a warrant issued by judge or magistrate is later found to be invalid, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable

if officers conducting the search acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the validity of warrant. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S.

981 (1984); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 916 (1984).

The Virginia circuit court which issued Hickman's arrest warrant

did not have proper jurisdiction to do so because Hickman's appeal

was not perfected; the capias was rescinded after Hickman's arrest.

Nonetheless, because the vice officers acted upon a facially valid warrant and had no reason to question its validity, the district court properly applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, as the

capias was issued due to the judge's error alone. See Arizona v.

Evans, ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 4179 (U.S. Mar. 1, 1995) (No. 93-

1660) (good faith exception applied when court employee's clerical

error caused invalid warrant to appear in database relied upon by

arresting officers); Leon, 468 U.S. at 916 (purpose of exclusionary

rule is to deter police misconduct rather than punish judicial error);

Shepard, 468 U.S. at 990 (where judge, not a police officer, makes

a mistake that leads to a Fourth Amendment violation, the exclusionary rule should not be applied).

That the vice squad executed the warrant anticipating that Hickman

might possess illegal drugs is irrelevant, as the subjective motivations

of the officers is not considered in a good faith inquiry. Leon, 486

U.S. at 922 n.23 (a court's inquiry into an officer's conduct is confined to "the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably

well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal

despite the magistrate's authorization"; courts should "eschew inqui-

 3
ries into the subjective beliefs of law enforcement officers who seize

evidence pursuant to a subsequently invalidated warrant"). See also

Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 470 (1985) (whether an officer's

actions were reasonable does not include his subjective state of mind).

Also, we find that the district court did not err in its factual determination that the warrant was not held for the purpose of executing it at

a time when police specifically thought Hickman would possess

drugs. The police unsuccessfully tried to execute the warrant on four

separate occasions, and police immediately executed the warrant on

Hickman after learning of his whereabouts.

Finally Hickman's allegation that the police arrested him as a pretext to investigate his suspected drug activity fails. This Court has

considered claims of "pretextual stops" under an objective standard,

which determines an arrest is reasonable if (1) the arresting officer

had probable cause to believe defendant had committed or was committing an offense; and (2) the arresting officer was authorized by law

to effect a custodial arrest for the particular offense. United States v.

Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S.

___, 62 U.S.L.W. 3640 (U.S. Mar. 28, 1994) (No. 93-7067). The officers involved acted upon a facially valid warrant, and were within

their authority in so doing.

Therefore, we affirm the district court's order denying Hickman's

motion to suppress. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4