Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20015
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. R AYM O N D M AY E S , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 7

- CR- 3 9 9

- ALL

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R a ym on dM a ye s w a s con victedbya juryof p oss es s ion w i th i n ten t t o d is tr ib u te m o r e th a n fiv e g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e , p o s s e s s io n o f afir e a r m in f ur t he r anc e o f

a dr ug t r af

f i c ki ng c r i m e , and po s s e s s i o n o f af i r e ar m a f

t e rb e i ng c onvi c t ed o f

a f el ony. M ayes appeal s t he di st r i ct co u r t ’ s deni alof hi s pre t r i al
m oti on to su p p ress . H e a rg u es th a t th e se a rch w a rra n t t h a t en a b l ed off i cers to coll ect i ncul pat or y e vi denc e a nd ef fec t uat e hi s ar r es tw as nots upport ed by pro babl e c ause be c ause t he w ar r antaf f i davit c ons i st ed pr i m ar i l y o f m at er i al United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 9, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20015 Document: 00511023331 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20015

2 t h a tt h e d r a f

t i n go f f i c e rc o p i e df

r o m a n e a r l i e ra f

f i d a v i ti n a n u n r e l a t e dc a s e . H e al so argues t h at w e shou l d extend our sup ervi sory pow ers an d order sup pressi on a s as a n c tio n fo rth e m is c o n d u c t o f th e d r a ftin go ffic e r . In revi ew i n g a dis t ri ctcourt ’ s den i alo f a m ot i on t o sup press, t h i s c ou rt f i r s tde t e r m i ne s w he t he rt he ev i de nc e ati s s ue w as ob t ai ne d byl aw enf o r c e m e nt of f i ci al s act i n g i n obj ect ivel y reasona bl e good-fai t h reli an ce upon a searc h
w a r r a n t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. S h uga rt , 1 17 F. 3d8 38 , 8 43 ( 5t h Ci r. 1 997 )
. I f t he go o d- fait h e xc e pt i o n a ppli e s , o uri nquir y e nds , a nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e nt
m u st be aff

i rm ed
. Uni t e d St at e s v . Fr o m an , 355 F. 3d 882, 888 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) (c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. H o w e ve r , i f t he e xc e pt i o n do e s no t ap ply, w e m us tde t e r m i ne w h e th e rth e r e w a s a s u b s ta n tia l b a s is fo rfin d in gp r o b a b le ca u s e . Id
. W e revi ew f i n di n gs of

factm ad e by a dis t ri ctcourton a m ot i on t o sup press f or c l ear err or andt he di st ri ctcou r t ’ s l e ga lc o nc l us i o ns de no vo , v i e w i ng t he e vi de nc e i n t he lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e p r e v a ilin gp a r ty
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ja cqu i n ot , 258 F .3 d4 2 3 , 4 2 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). M ayes arg u e s t h at th e good-fai t h excepti on does not app l y i n t h i s c ase be c aus e t he dr af

t i ng o f f i c e rde l ibe r at e l y fal s i f i e d or rec kl e s s l y di s r e ga r de d t he t r ut h nec es sa r y t o t he f i ndi ng of pro babl e c ause by c ut t i ng- and- past i ng f r om an u n rel ated af

f i da vi t
. M ayes i s c orrec tt h at th e good-fai t h excepti on i s not a p p lic a b le if th e w a r r a n t co n ta in s a fa ls e s ta te m e n t th a t w a s m a d e in te n tio n a lly
o rw ith re c k le s s d is r e g a r dfo rth e tr u th
. Se e Uni t e d St at e s v . Po pe , 467 F. 3d 912, 9 1 6

– 1 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mays , 4 6 6 F .3d 3 3 5 , 3 4 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). H ow ever, w h il e t h ere i s evi den ce t h at the af f i da vi tin this case m ay h ave been
c o p ie dre c k le s s lyfr o m a ne a r lie ra ffid a v it, th e re c o r da ls o co n ta in s cr e d ib le
e v id e n c e th a t t h e fa c ts re c ite din th e a ffid a v it r e fle c t e v e n ts th a t a c tu a lly
o c c ur r e d a nd whi c h es t ab l i s he d pr o ba bl e ca us e . M o r e o ve r , t o t he e xt e ntt hatt he af f i da vi t contai n s u n veri f i ed s t atem en t s t h at w ere c arel essly copi ed f rom a pri or af f i da vi t , t h e rem oval of t h ose s t atem en t s i s w i t h ou tconsequ en ce; t h e rem aini ng evi den ce i n t h e af

f i da vi tadeq u a1tel y est abli shes t h e necessary p robable cau se Case: 09-20015 Document: 00511023331 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20015

3 fo rth e is s u a n c e o f as e a r c h w a r r a n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cava zos , 288 F. 3d 706, 710 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ;Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l varez , 127 F. 3d 372, 374 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) (c i t i ng Fran ks v. D elaw are , 4 8 3 U .S . 1 5 4 (1 9 7 8 )). Thus , M ay e s ha s fail e d t o e s t ab l i s h t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur te r r e d i n de nyi ng hi s m o t i o n t o s upp r e s s . H e al s o has no ts ho w n t hatt hi s c as e i nvo lve s r ar e a nd p a rti cu l a rl y e gr eg i ou s ci rcum stan ces th a t m i gh t pro m p t t h i s cou rt t o ex ercise i ts
s upe rvi s o r y po w e r s a nd o r de r s upp r e s s i o n e ve n t ho ugh t he w ar r anta ppli c at i o n, r e m o v e do f a n yfa ls e in fo r m a tio n , d e m o n s tr a te s p r o b a b le ca u s e . Cf
. Un i t ed St a t e s v . Ha s t i ng , 4 6 1 U
. S
. 499 , 506 –07 ( 198 3) ( sug gest i n g t h at s u pervi sory p o w e r s s h o u ldb e u s e ds p a r in g ly); seealso Herr i ng v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 12 9 S
. C t. 695, 702–04 ( 2009) (r e vi e w i ng t he t yp e o f f l ag r ant o r s ys t e m i c all y n egli ge nt co n d u ct th a t w a rr a n ts u se o f e x clu sio n a ry ru le f o r d e te rr e n c e p u r p o se s). Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e ri s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-20015 Document: 00511023331 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2010