IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40720

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAMIRO LOZANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-825-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramiro Lozano appeals his conviction for two counts of persuading a minor

to engage in sexually explicit conduct. Lozano argues that the district court

erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to a

search warrant because the supporting affidavit was insufficient to support

application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule and was

insufficient to establish probable cause. Lozano contends that the affidavit was

bare bones and did not contain sufficient facts and circumstances from which a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 4, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-40720 Document: 00511561824 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2011
No. 10-40720

magistrate could determine probable cause. He also contends that the affiant

provided misleading information. 

We review factual findings on a motion to suppress for clear error and

legal determinations de novo. United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 483 (5th

Cir. 2002). The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that if law

enforcement officials act in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a

search warrant the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant is admissible

even if the affidavit on which the warrant was grounded was insufficient to

establish probable cause. United States v. Shugart, 117 F.3d 838, 843 (5th Cir.

1997). However, the good-faith exception does not apply if the underlying

affidavit is bare bones or the affiant provided misleading information. United

Stats v. Mays, 466 F.3d 335, 343 (5th Cir. 2006). A bare bones affidavit is one

that contains “wholly conclusional statements [ ] which lack the facts and

circumstances from which a magistrate can independently determine probable

cause.” United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1992). In

reviewing whether there is sufficient information to support a warrant, we

examine the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Fisher, 22 F.3d 574,

578 (5th Cir. 1994). 

The information in the affidavit supporting the challenged warrant

provided facts sufficient for a determination of probable cause. The affiant

detailed the circumstances of Lozano’s arrest and described relevant items in his

possession giving rise to probable cause. Specifically, the affidavit noted that

Lozano was found in possession of school identification cards. He was also in

possession of numerous adult pornographic films, photographs of school-aged

children, and at least one photograph depicting an individual with exposed

genitals. 

Additionally, the record does not support a finding that the affiant misled

the magistrate. No statement in the affidavit is deliberately untruthful or made

with a reckless disregard for the truth. See United States v. Alvarez, 127 F.3d

2

Case: 10-40720 Document: 00511561824 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2011
No. 10-40720

372, 373 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the affiant brought the evidence referenced

in the affidavit to the magistrate for viewing purposes. This conduct does not

evidence an intent to mislead. 

Because the affidavit was not misleading and provided detailed

information from which a determination of probable cause could be made, the

district court did not err in concluding that the good-faith exception to the

exclusionary rule applied. See Shugart, 117 F.3d at 844. Therefore, we do not

consider whether the affidavit presented sufficient evidence to establish probable

cause. See United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1999). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

3

Case: 10-40720 Document: 00511561824 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2011