Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 4 7.5 , the court has determined that thisopinion should not be published * and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forthin 5 TH C IR . R. 4 7.5 .4. 1 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50118

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. JAI M E TO RR ES; RO BE RT O TO RR ES; BLA N CATO RR ES D efen da n t s- A pp el l an t s

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas ( 2: 06- C R
- 76)

B e fo r e R E AV L E Y , S M IT H , a n dD E N N IS , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * A p p e lla n ts , J a im e , R o b e r to , a n dB la n c a T o r r e s , join tlya p p e a l f r o m th e ir convic t i on s on dru g- rel ated ch arges a n d f or consp i racy to l au n der m on ey. B ef ore t h e i rj o i n tt r i a l , t h e d e fe n d a n t s s o u g h tt o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e u n c o v e r e df r o m a 200 1 w arran t l ess search of Jai m e an d R obert o T orres ’ s paren t s’ranch . T h ey al so United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk08- 50118

Jaime Torres was charged with runningthe ranch and was allowed to use portions of the 2 property for his own com

mercial ventures.However, he has ass erted no ownership interest in any of the property the agents eventually

searched on thegrounds.

2 s o ugh tt o s upp r e s s t he r e s ul t s o f a2 00 6 w ar r ant - ba s e d s e ar c h o f J ai m e a nd B l a n c a T orre s’ s h om e. T h e d i stri ct cou rt de n i ed bo th m oti on s an dap p ell a n ts seek reversalon t h ese groun ds. A pp el l an t B l an ca T orres al so seeks t o ha ve h er convic t i on f

or m on ey l au n deri n g u n der 18 U . S . C . § 18 56(a) ( 1) & (h ) setasi de f or i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e . Fi nall y, e ac h o f t he de fe nda nt s r e que s t s w e a m e nd the di st r i c tc our t ’ s f

or feit ure j udgm ent , en tered u nder18 U . S. C . § 982( a) and 21 U . S . C . § 853(p) , argu i n g t h at th e di st ri ctcourti n corr ectlym u l t i pl i ed the j u ry ve r di ctf

r o m t he f

o r fe i t ur e t r i al . As w e ho l d t hatne i t he rs e ar c h v i o l at e d t he F ou rt h A m en dm en tan d t h at, based on t h e deferenti alst an da rd of revi ew , t h ere w as suff

i ci en t evi den ce f

or a reasona bl e j u ry t o convi ctB l an ca T orres , w e af f i rm A pp el l an t s’convi ct i on s. M oreover, as allp a rties agree t h at th e m on et ary f orf ei t u re j u dg m en t en t ered by t h e di st ri ctcourtw as i n consi st en tw i t h t h e j u ry v e r d ic t, w e o r d e rth a t ju d g m e n t b e m o d ifie d . Backgro und In ea rl y 2 0 0 1 , A d ri en n e M a rti n ez , a U n i tedS tates B ord er P a trol A ge n t, l ocat ed f

resh f oot pri n t s near t h e T exas- M exi co border. T h i n king they w ere t h e pri n t s of

an i l l egal en t ran t , M art i n ez an d an ot h er agen tf ol l ow ed those t racks t o t h e “ T orres R an ch” propert y, ow n ed an d op erat ed byt h e paren t s of Jaim e an d R obert o T orres , sol el y f or c om m erci alpu rposes. 2 The r anc h was fe nc e d, s o , w i t ho utaw ar r ant , t he a ge nt s c l i m be d t he fe nc e a nd e nt e r e d t he pr o pe r t y. The s m e l lo f unb ur ntm ar ij uanal e d t he agen t s t o a veh i cl e. T h e agen t s open ed the t run k an d d i scovered bun dl es of m ar ij uanai ns i de . Spur r e d b y t hi s di s c o ve r y t o l o o k f ur t he r , m o r e m ar ij uana08- 50118

AgentCri stprepared anumber of af f idavitsaspartof

hi sinvestigation . Appe llantsmake 3 reference to several of these affidavits. However, it app ears that their arguments on appeal turn on a singleaff idavitsubmitted at

the start o f 20 06and

thuswe fo cus our di scus sion on thisaff

idavit . 3 w as unc o ve r e d i n a no t he r , ne arby , v e hi c l e . The a ge nt s t he n hi d o n t he property, w ai t i n g t o see w h at el se t h ey w ou l d u n cover. E ven t u al l y a tr u ck a rr ive dca rr y in gtw o m e n , o n e of w h o m th e a g e n ts w e re late r a b le to ide n tify as Jai m e T orres . T h e m en began t o l oadt h e m arij u an a i n t o t h ei r vehi cl e. T h en an ot h er t ruck a rrived . T h e agen t s, feari n g t h at t h ei r hi deou tha d been com prom i sed, cal l ed f or back- u p. A s ot h er agen t s arr ived , t h e t w o t rucks f l ed w ith th e iro c c u p a n ts . N o a r r e s ts re le v a n t t o th is a p p e a l w e r e m a d e a t t h is t i m e. Att he s t ar to f 2 00 6, I m m i gr at i o n a nd Cus t o m s Enf o r c e m e ntAge nt N oah C ri st , w h o w as assi gn ed to t h e ong oi n g i n vest i gati on of t h e T orres es’ act ivi t i es, subm i t t ed an af f i da vi tas part of

hi s app l i cat i on f

or a s earch w arran tf

or Jai m e an d B l an ca T orres ’ s hom e. I n t h i s af f i da vi tC ri stdetai l ed 3 fac t s dat ed f

r om 1997 t hro ugh 2001, i ncl udi ng t he r es ul t s of t he 2001 w ar r ant l e s s s e ar c h o f t he To r r e s Ranc h, s ugg e s t i ng t he To r r e s e s ’i nvo lve m e nt w ith d r u gs m u g g lin ga n dm o n e yla u n d e r in g . T h e a ffid a v it a ls o d e ta ile dw ild s w i ngs i n t he To r r e s e s ’i nc o m e , g o i ng f r o m $ 26 , 00 0 t o $ 1. 4 m i l l i o n; c o nf i de nt i ali nf

o r m ant s de s c r ibi ng t he To r r e s e s ’i nvo lve m e ntw i t h s m uggl i ng r o ut e s ; a nd thato t he rm e m be r s o f t he To r r e s fam i l y w e r e a r r e s t e d f o rdr ug t r af f i c ki ng i n 2 00 3. M o r e o ve r , Cr i s ts t at e d t hatb as e d o n t hi s e vi de nc e he p e r s o n a llyb e lie v e dJ a im e T o r r e s w a s in v o lv e din ille g a l a c tiv itie s . A s are s u lt o f t hi s e vi de nc e , t he M ag i s t r at e J udg e g r ant e d t he w ar r ant . The r e s ul t i ng s e ar c h o f

J ai m e a nd Bl anc a Tor r e s ’ s ho m e unc o ve r e d whatt he g o ve r nm e nt l ateral l egedw as a l edg er of drugt ran sact i on s.08- 50118

4 Jaim e an d R obert o T orres w ere s u bsequ en t l y i n di ct ed on one coun tof vi ol at i ng 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) & (b) ( 1) (A) , i nt entt o di st r ibut e m or e t han 1 ,00 0 k il o g ra m s o f m a riju a n a , o n e co u n t of v iola tin g2 1 U .S .C . § § 9 5 2 (a ), 960 ( a) ( 1) & (b) ( 1) an d 96 3, conspi racy t o i m port m ore t h an 1, 000 ki l ogram s of m a r iju a n ain to th e U n ite dS ta te s , a n do n e co u n t o f v io la tin g1 8 U .S .C . § 195 6( a) ( 1) & (h ) , conspi racy t o l au n der m on et ary i n st rum en t s. B l an ca T orres w as i ndi c t e d o nl y o n o ne c o unto f v i o l at i ng 18 U . S. C. § 1 95 6( a) ( 1) & (h) . The de fe nda nt s f

i l e d j o i ntm o t i o ns t o s upp r e s s t he e vi de nc e unc o ve r e d d ur i ng t he s e a r c h e s d e s c r ib e da b o v e a n dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie dth e irm o tio n s . D u ri n g t h ei r t ri al , am on g ot h er evi den ce, t h e governm en tpresented t e s t i m o ny f

r o m anum be ro f

a l l e ge d c o - c o ns pi r at o r s i n t he dr ug s m uggl i ng o pe r at i o n, a s w e l la s t he t e s t i m o ny o f J uan P. G ar z a, w ho s t at e d t hathe l aundere d m oney f

orJai m e Tor r es . M or eo ver , t he go ver nm ents how ed t hat B l an ca T orres w as t h e sol e si gn ator y on her an d Ja i m e T orres ’ s busi n ess ba nk a c c o unt , w hi c h t he g o ve r nm e nta l l e ge d c o nt ai ne d d e po s i t s f r o m t he dr ug s m uggl i ng o pe r at i o ns . The g o ve r nm e nta l s o de m o ns t r at e d t hatBl anc a m ad e de po s i t s o f

s e ve r all ar ge s um s f r o m J uan G ar z a, w i t ho utpr o vi di ng hi m t he s e rv ic e s fo rw h ic h th o s e p a y m e n ts w e r e n o m in a llym a d e . In a d d itio n , it s ho w e d Bl anc a m ad e num e r o us l ar ge pur c has e s f r o m t he s e a c c o unt s , l ivi ng w e ll o u ts id e th e in c o m e J a im e T o r r e s cla im e dh e re c e iv e dfr o m th e ir l e git i m at e b us i ne s s a c t ivit i e s j us tafe w y e ar s e ar l i e r , $ 23 , 00 0, i nc l udi ng buy i ng s e ve r alpr o pe r t i e s , aRol e x w at c h, a nd c ar r yi ng o ve r$ 11 , 00 0 i n c as h. B la n c aT o r r e s ’s o n lyd e fe n s e w a s th a ts h e la c k e dc o n t r o l o v e rh e rh u s b a n d ’s busi nes s dec i si ons . Th e o t herdef endant s’w i t nes se s and ar gum ent s ar e no tat is s u e o n a p p e a l.08- 50118

5 Eac h o f t he de fe nda nt s w as c o nvi c t e d o n a l lc o unt s . Sub s e que nt l y, t he c our thel d a f

or feit ure t r i ali n w hi c h t he j ury det er m i ned t hat$750, 000 w as t r ac e ab l e t o t he de fe nda nt s ’c o ns pi r ac i e s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tl at e re nt e r e d a m on et ary j u dg m en t , hol di n g t h em j oi n t l y an d several l y l i able f or f orf ei t u re of $2, 250 , 000 , app eari n g t o m u l t i pl y t h e $75 0, 000 verdi ctby the nu m ber of d e fe n d a n ts . A pp el l an t s t i m el y ap pea l ed thei r c on vi ct i on s, argu i n g t h at t h e evi den ce f rom t h e 200 1 an d 20 06 searches shou l d h ave been sup pressed an d B l an ca T orres cl ai m ed h er c on vi ct i on w as basedon i n suff i ci en tevi den ce. M oreover, t h e app el l an t s c ol l ect ivel y m ovedt o ha ve t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f orf ei t u re j u d gm en t m od i fi ed to refl ect th e j u ry ’ s ve rd i ct. D i s cus s i on A pp e l la n t s ’

F o u r t h A me n d me n tC la i ms In revi ew i n g t h e den i alof a m ot i on t o sup press, “ ‘ w e revi ew t h e di st ri ct cou rt’ s fa ctu a lf

i n d i n gs f

or clearerro r an di ts l eg a lcon cl u sion s, i n cl u d i n g it s ul t i m at e c o nc l us i o n a s t o t he c o ns t i t ut i o nali t y o f t he l aw enf

o r c e m e nta c t i o n, de no vo . ’” Un i t ed S t ate s v. R eyes , 3 49 F. 3d2 19 , 2 22 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) ( quo t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ch avez , 281 F. 3d 479, 483 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ) . O f par t i c ul ar rel evan ce t o app l yi n g t h i s s t an da rd t o t h i s c ase, w e ha ve h el d that “ [w ] h et h er a defend an tha s s t an di n g t o contes tan al l eged l y i l l egal search i s a questi on of l a w . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Iba rra , 948 F. 2d 903, 906 ( 5t h C i r . 1991) (c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. K

ye Soo L ee , 8 9 8 F .2 d1 0 3 4 , 1 0 3 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 )). T h e 2001 S earch The 20 01 s e ar c h o f

t he To r r e s Ranc h i s b e s tc o nc e pt uali z e d a s r ai s i ng t w o po t e nt i alFo ur t h Am e ndm e ntv i o l at i o ns , f i r s tt he a ge nt s ’e nt r y o nt o t he08- 50118

6 p rop ertyan dseco n dthe sea rch of th e v eh i cl es. Y et bo th of th ese F ou rth Am e ndm e ntc o nc e r ns c an be di s m i s s e d a s t he de fe nda nt s l ac ke d t he r eas onabl e e xpec t at i on o f pr ivac y nec es sa r y t o have s t andi ng t o c hal l enge th e s e s e a r c h e s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez , 276 F. 3d 694, 697 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( “W het hert her e i s st andi ng t o c ont es tt he vali di t y o f a s ear c h ‘ depends on ( 1) w h et h er t h e defen da n ti s abl e t o est abli sh an act u al , subj ect ive exp ect ati on of privac y w i t h re spe c tt o the pl ac e b ei ng s ear c hed ori t em s bei ng s ei ze d, and ( 2) w het hert hatex pec t at i on o f pr ivac y i s one w hi c h so c i et y w oul d r ec ogni ze as r eas onabl e. ’” ( quot i ng K ye Soo L ee , 8 9 8 F .2d a t 1 0 3 7 -3 8 ))) . The de fe nda nt s l ac ke d s t and i ng t o c hall e nget he a ge nt s ’e nt r y, a nd de c i s i o n t o r e m ai n, o n t he pr o pe r t y be c aus e o f t he “ o pe n f

i e l ds do c t r i ne . ” The S u prem e C ou rtan d thi s C i rcui tha ve recogni zed the st ark d i st i n ct i on betw een an “ open f

i el d” and t h e “ curtil age” of t h e hom e. “ O pen f

i el ds are pr o t e c t e d ne i t he rund e rt he t e xto f t he Fo ur t h Am e ndm e ntno rund e rt he c o n c e p tio n o f th e A m e n d m e n t.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pace , 95 5 F . 2 d27 0 , 27 4 ( 5 th C i r . 1992) (c i t i ng K

a tzv . Un ite dS ta te s , 3 8 9 U .S . 3 4 7 (19 6 7 )). T h e y , b yth e ir v e r yn a tu r e , la c kth e s o c ia l s ig n ific a n c e to cr e a te a n o bje c tiv e lyre a s o n a b le expe c t at i on o f

pr ivac y i n t he pr ope r t y. W he n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he ra n a r e a i s a n o pe n f i e l d o rc ur t i l ag e , t he C ou rtha s s t ated, “t h e centr alcom pon en tof t h i s i n qu i ry [i s] w h et h er t h e area h arbors t h e ‘i n t i m ate act ivi t y associ ated w i t h t h e “ san ct i t y of a m an ’ s hom e a n dthe pr iva ci es o f l i fe. ”’” Uni t e d St at e s v . D unn , 480 U . S. 294, 300 ( 1987) ( quot i ng B oydv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 116 U . S . 616 , 630 ( 188 6) ) . T h e C ou rtt h en w e nto n t o l i s tf

o urfac t o r s t hats ho ul d b e c o ns i de r e d i n t hi s a nalys i s , “t he p r o x im ityo f th e a r e acla im e dto b e cu r tila g e to th e h o m e , w h e th e rth e a r e ais08- 50118

Such a conclusionis further su

pported by this court’s holdingin Pace
. In Pace,two of ficers 4 searchingf

or drugs entered ontoaproperty by oneo f them

“ sq ueezingthrough a gapb etween the main gate and a fence post and the other by clim bingover the gate.” Pace, 9 55 F.2 d at 273.While searching the property

they “cro ssed at least two more gates” tolook for signs o f illegal activity . Id. The court found that noneof this conduct pos ed a constitutional concern, as it was merely an exercise of the officers’ “privilege[] to stand in theop en field.” Id. at 27 5. 7 i n cl u d ed w i th i n an en cl osu re su rrou n d i n g th e h om e, th e n a tu re of the u ses to w h i ch the area i s pu t , an d the st eps t ak en by the res i den tt o prot ectt h e area from ob serv a ti on bype op l e p a ssingby . ” Id . a t 3 0 1 . B ased on t h i s ana l ysi s, t h e T orres R an ch m u stbe vi ew ed as an open f i e l d. The r anc h was ac o m m e r c i alpr o pe r t y s e pa r at e a nd d i s t i nc tf r o m t he Tor r e s e s ’fam i l y ho m e , no tus e d f o ra ny f o r m o f do m e s t i c a c t ivit y and protec t ed on l y by a scal able fen ce. T h u s, t h e property w as di st i n gu i shed f rom a n yth i n g th a t cou l dbe ch a ra cterizedas ty p i ca l l y co n tain i n g th e intim a te a c t iv i t i e s o f

ap r iv a t e h o me . A c c o r d i n g l y , n o i n d iv i d u a lc o u l dc l a i m a r eas onabl e e xpec t at i on o f pr ivac y i n t he pr ope r t y. W i t houts uch an ex p ecta ti on the de fen d a n ts do n ot h a ve stan d i n g to ra i se a F ou rth A m endm entc hal l enge t o the age nt s’w ar r ant l es s ent r y. 4 The de fe nda nt s l i ke w i s e l ac k s t and i ng t o c hall e nget he s e ar c h o f t he ve hi c l e s o n t he r anc h. To de t e r m i ne w he t he ra ny o f t he de fe nda nt s ha d a constit u t i on al l y protec t ed exp ect ati on of privacy i n t h i s propert y t h i s c ou rt has s ai d anum be ro f fac t o r s m us tb e w e i ghe d “i nc l ud[i ng] w he t he rt he de fe nda ntha s apo s s e s s o r y i nt e r e s ti n t he t hi ng s e i z e d o rt he pl ac e s e ar c he d, w het herhe has t he r i ghtt o e xc l ude other s f r om t hatpl ac e, w het herhe has exh ibi t ed a su bj ect ive exp ect ati on t h at itw ou l d rem ai n f ree f rom g o v e r n m e n ta l in v a s io n , w h e th e rh e to o kn o r m a l p r e c a u tio n s to m a in ta in h is08- 50118

The government raised a num ber o f other base s on

which we could conclude that the search 5 was constitutional. We donot reachthesearguments as we find the initial stepof the F ourth Amendment inquiry, standing, foreclosed to Appellants. 8 p r iv a c ya n dw h e th e rh e w a s le g itim a te lyo n th e p r e m is e s .” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Hayd el , 6 4 9 F .2d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). A s w i t h t h e agen t s’entry onto t h e T orres R an ch, each of t h e fact ors w ei gh s agai n stf

i n di n g t h e defen da n t s had a reasonab l e expectat i on of privacy i n t h e cars . B ot h of t h e cars bel on gedt o Jai m e an d R obert o’ s paren t s, an d n on e of

t h e defen da n t s had an y sortof possess ory i n t eresti n t h e veh i cl es; t h e rec ord provi des n o i n di cat i on t h at t h e defen da n t s w ere em pow ered t o use t he c ar s f

o ra ny pur po s e , t hus t he r e c o r d s ugg e s t s t hatt he de fe nda nt s ha d no a u th o r ityto e x c lu d e o th e r s fr o m u s in gth e v e h ic le s ; a n dth e d e fe n d a n ts d id n otl ock t h e veh i cl es’t run ks n or at t em pt t o m ove t h e cars t o a sec l u ded l ocat i on , defeati n g an y sug gest i on t h at t h ey h ad a subjec t ive exp ect ati on of p r iv a c yo rto o kn o r m a l p r e c a u tio n s to e n s u r e th e v e h ic le s w o u ldre m a in private. A ccor di n gl y, w e concl u de that t h e defen da n t s di d n otha ve a c o n s tit u tio n a llyp r o te c te de x p e c ta tio n o f p r iv a c yin th e v e h ic le s o rth e ir contents. A s a re su l t, be ca u se w e fi n dthe de fen d a n ts l a ck ed stan d i n g to c hall e nget he 2 00 1 s e ar c h, w e a f f i r m t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f t he defenda n t s’m ot i on t o sup press. 5 T h e 2006 S earch A pp el l an t s al so argue that t h e searc h w arran tf or t h e 200 6 search of Jaim e an d B l an ca T orres ’ s hom e l acked probab l e cause an d thu s t h e f rui t s of t hats e ar c h s ho ul d b e s upp r e s s e d. I n pa r t i c ul ar , t he y s ugg e s tt hatt he af f i da vits upp o r t i ng t he w ar r antw as de f i c i e ntb e c aus e i tr e l i e d o n s t al e a nd08- 50118

9 i r r e l e va nte vi de nc e a nd thatt he o f f i c e ra pplyi ng f

o rt he w ar r antm ad e om i ss i ons and deliber at ely de c eived t he c our tas t o t he bas i s of hi s beli ef

t hat t he Tor r es es ’w er e e ngaged i n cr i m i nalac t ivi t y. Yet , as sum i ng argue ndo t hat A ppel l ant s’c l ai m s ar e c or r ec tand r endert he w ar r antunsuppor t ed by p rob a b l e ca u se, th e fru i ts of th e se a rch stil lfa l lcl ea n l y w i th i n the “goo dfa i th e xc e pt i o n” t o the e xc l us i o nar y r ul e , c r e at i ng a ba s i s upo n whi c h t o uph o l d t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ru lin g . U nde rt he g o o d fait h e xc e pt i o n, “ [i] f a n o f f i c e r ’ s ‘ r e l i anc e o n t he m agis t rat e’ s probable- cau se det erm i n ati on an d on t h e t echn i calsuf f i ci en cy of t h e w arran the i ssues [i s] obj ect ivel y reasona bl e, ’a courtneed not s u pp ress th e fru i ts. ” Un ite dS ta te s v . Fla n d e rs , 468 F. 3d 269, 271 n. 2 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. L eon , 4 6 8 U .S . 8 9 7 , 9 2 2 (1 9 8 4 )) (s e c o n da lte r a tio n in ori gi n al) . G en eral l y, w e presum e t h at iti s obj ect ivel y reasona bl e f or an of f i cer to e x e c u te aw a r r a n t. S e eUn ite dS ta te sv . Po p e, 467 F . 3d 912 , 916 ( 5th C i r. 2006) ( endor si ng a di st r i c tc our t ’ s st at em entt hatonly i n “ exc ept i onal circ u m sta n ce s” d o e s th e g o o dfaith ex ce p tion n o t a p p ly to th e ex e cu tion of a w arran t) . H ow ever, t h i s c ou rtha s r ecognized f ou r pri m ary si t u ati on s w h ere t hi s pre sum pt i on w i l lbe ov er c om e a nd t he go od- fai t h exc ept i on w i l lnotbe a p p l i ed to an off

i cer’ s ex ecu ti on of a w a rra n t: i . w h en t h e m agis t rat e or st ate j u dg e i ssues a w arran ti n reli an ce on a d elib era tel y false a ff i d a vit; i i . w hen t he m agi st r at e o rs t at e j udge abandons hi s orherj udi c i al r o l e a nd fail s t o pe r f o r m i n ane ut r ala nd d e t ac he d fas hi o n; iii. w h e n th e w a r r a n t is b a s e do n a n a ffid a v it s o la c k in gin in d ic ia o f p r o b a b le ca u s e a s to re n d e ra n o ffic e r ’ s b e lie f in it unr e as o nab l e ; a nd iv. w h en the w a rra n t i s so facially d efi ci en t t h a t it fa i l s to pa r t i c ul ar i z e t he pl ac e t o b e s e ar c he d o rt he i t e m s t o b e s e i z e d.08- 50118

10 Id . at916- 17 (c i t i ng L e o n , 4 6 8 U . S . at 91 4 ). A p p ell a n ts’arg u m en ts seek to cha ract eri ze t h e 200 6 search as fal l i n g i n t o ei t h er t h e f i rstor t h i rd ci rcu m stan ce. H ow ev er, to ov erco m e th e p resu m p ti on of rea son a b l en ess bo th t he s e e xc e pt i o ns - t o - t he

- e xc e pt i o n ha ve t he i ro w n r e quir e m e nt s a nd we f i nd t h em un sup ported by t h e evi den ce i n t h i s c ase. R egard i n g t h e f

i rstcircum st an ce, t o sup press evi den ce because a w ar r antom i t t ed o rm i sc harac t er i ze d r el evanti nf or m at i on, t hi s c our thas de t e r m i ne d s uc h a n e r r o rm us tb e s ho w n t o ha veb e e n “kno w i ngly and in te n tio n a llym a d e o r[] m a d e in re c k le s s d is r e g a r dfo rth e tr u th .” Un i t ed St at e s v . Cr o nan , 9 3 7 F .2 d1 6 3 , 1 6 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); s e eals o Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ma rtin , 61 5 F . 2 d31 8 , 32 9 ( 5 th C i r. 19 8 0 ) (“ a pr ov en m i ssta tem en t can vit i a te an af f i da vi tonl y i f

i ti s es t abli shed t h at t h e m i sst atem en tw as t h e produ ct‘ of del iber at e fal se hood o rof r ec kl es s di sr egar d f ort he t r ut h’” ( quot i ng Franks v. D elaw are , 4 3 8 U .S . 1 5 4 , 1 7 1 (19 7 8 ))) . A s th ese are fa ctu a lpr ed i ca tes to ap pl yi n g t h e l egal st an da rd of t h e good fai t h excepti on , w e revi ew t h e di st ri ct court’ s det erm i n ati on f or c l ear err or. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L oon ey , 532 F. 3d 3 9 2 , 3 9 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 5 1 3 (2 0 0 8 ). A pp el l an t s al l ege t h at th e af f i da vi tsup porti n g t h e w arran tom i t t ed in fo r m a tio n a b o u t t h e T o r r e s e s ’le g itim a te b u s in e s s o p e r a tio n s — p o te n tia lly e xp l ai ni ng t he s us pi c i o us t r ans ac t i o ns a nd d e po s i t s de s c r ibe d i n t he af f i da vi t

— an d other searc h es of t h e defen da n t s’property— w h i ch h ad fai l ed t o un cover evi den ce of i l l egal act ivi t i es. M oreover, t h ey argu e t h at C ri st m i sl ed t he c our tt o b el i eve t hatt he Tor r es es w er e e ngaged i n i l l egal a c tiv itie s , b ys ta tin gh is p e r s o n a l co n c lu s io n th a t t h e yw e r e e n g a g e din u n l a w ful activiti es, w h i ch reli ed on ou t- of- d a te ev i d en ce a n dan i n a p p rop ri a te08- 50118

11 as s um pt i o n t hatt he i rr e l at ive s ’i l l e ga la c t ivit i e s i ndi c at e d t he i ri nvo lve m e nt i n drugt raf

f i cki n g. H ow ever, C ri sti n cl u ded w i t h hi s af f i da vi ti n f

orm ati on abou tJai m e an d B l an ca T orres ’ s t ax ret u rns, w h i ch h e noted report ed i n com e, p resu m a b l y from l eg i ti m a te sou rces . T h u s, the ag en ts’fa i l u re to r e s t at e t hi s po t e nt i all y e xc ul pa t o r y i nf o r m at i o n di d no tm ak e o utt he requ i si t e m ens re a . M or eo ver , A ppel l ant s fai lt o i nt r oduc e a ny evi denc e t hat w ou l d su ggest C ri sti n t en ded t o or bel i evedhe w as l i kely m i sl ead i n g t h e court a s to th e b a s is fo ro rs tr e n g th o f h is b e lie f th a t t h e T o r r e s e s w e r e e n g a g e din c r i m i nalac t ivi t y. A c c or di ngl y, w e f i nd t he di st r i c tc our tc om m i t t ed no c l ear er r ori n det er m i ni ng t hatt he al l ege d om i t t ed o rm i ss t at ed i nf or m at i on w as no ts ho w n t o b e i nt e nt i o nall y o rr e c kl e s s l y pl ac e d i n t he a f f i da vita nd t he r e f o r e i n a pplyi ng t he g o o d fait h e xc e pt i o n. T h e th ir dcir c u m s ta n c e w h e r e th e g o o dfa ith e x c e p tio n m a yn o t a p p lyis if aw a r r a n t is u n r e a s o n a b lyb a s e do n a“b a r e b o n e s ” a ffid a v it. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cordero , 465 F . 3d626 , 630 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) . A pp el l an t s r ai se t h e spect er of t hi s e xc e pt i o n b y ar gui ng t hatt he 2 00 6 af f i da vitr e l i e d o n s t al e i nf o r m at i o n. T o d e te r m in e w h e th e r“s ta le ” in fo r m a tio n in a n a ffid a v it m a k e s as e a r c h fa ll o u ts id e th e g o o dfa ith e x c e p tio n , th is co u r t h a s s a idth a t t h e p r o p e rin q u ir yis w he t he rt he s t al e ne s s c aus e d t he w ar r antt o b e “ s o de f i c i e ntt hatno r e a s o n a b le o ffic e rco u ldh a v e b e lie v e dth a t ite s ta b lis h e dp r o b a b le ca u s e .” Un itedS ta tes v. C ra ig , 861 F . 2d 818 , 821 ( 5th C i r. 198 8) . A s t h i s i s al so a fact u alpredi cat e t o app l yi n g t h e excepti on - t o- t h e- excepti on , w e again revi ew th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n fo rcle a re r r o r . S ee L oon ey , 5 3 2 F .3 da t 3 9 5 . A s descr ibedabove, A gen tC ri st ’ s af f i da vi tdetai l ed n otonl y fact s f rom 19 97 t o 2 00 1, i ndi c ati ng t he To r r e s e s w e r e e nga ge d i n il l e ga la c t ivit i e s , b ut08- 50118

12 al so i n com e st atem en t s f rom 200 6, show i n g vast and un exp l ai n able i n f l u xes o f m o ne y ands t at e m e nt s o f c o nf i de nt i ali nf

o r m ant s c o nf

i r m i ng Robe r t o a nd Ja i m e To r r e s ’ s i nvo lve m e ntw i t h s m uggl i ng r o ut e s . G ive n t he b r e ad t h a nd var i et y o f

t hi s i nf or m at i on, s panni ng num er ous ye ar s and dem ons t r at i ng a s e r i e s o f

g r o u n d s t o b e l i e v e t h e T o r r e s e s we r e i n v o lv e di n i l l e g a la c t iv i t i e s , we can n otsay t h at itw as cl ear err or f or t h e di st ri ctcourtt o concl u de a r e as o nab l e a ge ntc o ul d b e l i e ve t he w ar r antw as i s s ue d b as e d up o n a s u ffic ie n t a ffid a v it. T h e r e fo r e , a s th e s ta te is e n tit le dto th e fr u its o f as e a r c h co n d u c te din

“ goodfai t h , ” w e af

f irm t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof t h e m ot i on t o sup press. B la n caT

o rr es ’ s S uffi cie n cy of th e E v id en ceC la im W he n c o ns i de r i ng a s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he e vi de nc e c l ai m , “ ‘ w e de t e r m i ne w h et h er a r eason able j u ry coul d f i n d that t h e evi den ce es t abli shes t h e gu i l tof t he de fe nda ntb e yo nd ar e as o nab l e do ubt , ’v i e w i ng t he e vi de nc e i n t he l i ght m o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he g o ve r nm e nta nd wi t h a l lr e as o nab l e i nfe r e nc e s a nd c r e d ib ilitych o ic e s m a d e in s u p p o r t o f aco n v ic tio n .” Un itedS ta tes v. Ha rr is , 566 F. 3d 422, 435 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng Willia m s , 5 0 7 F . 3 d90 5 , 90 8 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 )). B l anca Torr es w as c onvi c t ed o f c ons pi r ac y t o l aunder m oney. To pr ove th i s cri m e a t t ri a l , the go ve rn m en t m u st “ sh ow tha t [th e d efen d a n t] kno w i ngly c o ns pi r e d wi t h a tl e as to ne o t he rpe r s o n t o ( 1) c o nduc to ra t t e m pt t o condu cta f

i n an ci alt ran sact i on ; ( 2) w i t h t h e kn ow l edg e t h at iti n volved p ro ce e d s o f sp e cifiedu n la w fu l ac tiv ity(h e re co n tro ll e dsu b sta n ce offe n se s); a n d(3 ) w ith th e k n o w le d g e th a t t h e tr a n s a c tio n w a s d e s ig n e din w h o le o rin p a rt t o con cea lthe n a tu re, sou rce, ow n ersh i p , or con trol of t h e p roce ed s, or to08- 50118

13 a vo i da fed era lor state re p ortingreq u i rem en t. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. F ernan d ez, 5 5 9 F .3 d3 0 3 , 3 1 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 2783 ( 2009) (pa rentheti cali n ori gi n al) . I n m ak i n g ou tt h ese el em en t s t h i s c ou rtha s s t ated t hat“ [ d] i r ec tev i denc e o f a c ons pi r ac y i s unn ec es sa r y; ea c h el em entm ay be i n ferredf

rom ci rcu m stan ti a lev i d en ce.” Un itedS ta tes v. Ca silla , 20 F. 3d 600, 6 0 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). A s descr ibedabove, t h e evi den ce agai n stB l an ca T orres w en tal m ost e nt i r e l y unc o nt e s t e d a nd p r o vi de d s t r o ng c i r c um s t ant i ali nfe r e nc e s t hats he w as i nvo lve d i n l aund e r i ng m o ne y f r o m unl awf

ula c t ivit i e s . The g o ve r nm e nt s h o w e dth a t B la n c aT o r r e s ’ s h u s b a n da n db r o th e r -in -la w w e r e in tim a te ly i nvo lve d i n l ar ge s c al e dr ug t r af f i c ki ng; t hatBl anc a t r ans ac t e d d i r e c t l y w i t h a m an i nvo lve d i n he rhus ba nd’ s m o ne y l aund e r i ng o pe r at i o n f o rt he s e dr ug t r ans ac t i o ns , pr o vi di ng hi m m o ni e s f o rpur c has e s t he g o ve r nm e nta l l e ge d, an d G arza t est i f

i ed, w ere partof

t h e l au n deri n g schem e an d receivi n g m on ey ba c k f r o m hi m no m i nall y f o rs e r vi c e s , w hi c h wer e i n fac tne ve rpr o vi de d. M o r e o v e r , th e g o v e r n m e n t s h o w e dth a t s h e m a d e p u r c h a s e s th a t w e r e w e ll ou t si de the decl ared i n com e provi ded by h er and her hu sban d’ s l egal bu si n ess ope r at i ons . Th us, t he go ver nm enthas br oughtf or t h di r ec tev i denc e t hat B l anca Torr es engag ed i n f i nanci alt r ansac t i ons and s uf f i c i entc i r c um st ant i al evi den ce t h at s h e w as aw are t h at her t ran sact i on s w i t h G arza w ere partof he rhus ba nd’ s m o ne y l aund e r i ng c o nne c t e d t o hi s i l l e ga lt r ans ac t i o ns a nd d is tin c t fr o m h e rla w fu l b u s in e s s o p e r a tio n s . A t t h e s a m e tim e , B la n c a d id notof ferany e xpl anat i on, l etal one a c om pel l i ng one, f orw hy s he c oul d have c onc l uded t hes e t r ansac t i ons w er e par tof anyt hi ng butherhusband’ s i l l egal o p e r a tio n s . H e rd e fe n s e o f ig n o r a n c e d o e s n o t d e fe a t t h e re a s o n a b le08- 50118

14 i nfe r e nc e s t hatc o nc e iva bly c o ul d ha ve b e e n dr awn f r o m he ra c t i o ns a nd c o nt ac t s . Tr ue , t he e vi de nc e i s farf r o m c o m pe l l i ng. H o w e ve r , t ak i ng allt he i nfe r e nc e s c r e at e d b y t hi s e vi de nc e i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he govern m en t , as w e are r equ i red t o do, w e cann otsay i ti s un reasona bl e f or a j ury t o have c onc l uded t hatB l anca Torr es w as gui l t y o f m oney l aunderi ng. A ccor di n gl y, w e af

f i rm B l an ca T orres ’ s c on vi ct i on f or c on spi racy t o l au n der m o n e y . TheFo rf

e i t ur eJudg m e nt A f t era s pec i alf

or feit ure t r i al , t he j ury det er m i ned t hat$750, 000 w as t r ac e ab l e t o t he c o ns pi r ac i e s c har ge d. Al lpa r t i e s a gr e e t hatt hi s w as t he en t i ret y of

t h e j u ry’ s verdi ct . A ccor di n gl y, t h e m on et ary j u dg m en tt h e di st ri ct court en t ered aga i n stt h e defen da n t s, seem i n gl y m u l t i pl yi n g t h e j u ry verdi ct byt he m ax i m um num be ro f de fe nda nt s — l e ad i ng t he c o ur tt o ho l d t he d e fe n d a n t s j o i n t l ya n ds e v e r a l l yl i a b l e f o r$ 2 , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0

— wa s i n e r r o r . T h u s , we m o d ifyth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e ro n th e b a s is o f p la in e r r o r . S ee , e . g. , Sp ark s v. B axte r , 854 F . 2d110 , 115 ( 5th C i r. 198 8) ( m odi f yi n g j u dg m en ton ap pea lf or p la in e r r o r); Cage v. Cage , 7 4 F .2 d3 7 7 , 3 7 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 3 4 ) (s a m e ). Concl usi on Fort he s e r e as o ns , t he a ppe l l ant s ’c o nvi c t i o ns a r e AFF I RM ED , a nd the di st ri ctcourt ’ s f

orf ei t u re j u dg m en ti s am en ded t o reduce the am ou n tf or w h ic h J a im e , R o b e r to , a n dB la n c a T o r r e s a r e h e ldjo in tlya n ds e v e r e lylia b le t o $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 , a n d , a s a me n d e d , i s A F F I RMED.