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- 30207 Su m m ar y Cal endar
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. E A R N E ST M C C R AY , JR
. , al soknow n as E r nes tM c C r ay , 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 ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 5: 06- C R

- 50126- 1
B e fo r e B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * E arn estM cC ray, Jr. , app eal s hi s c on di t i on algu i l t y- pl ea conv i ct i on f or po s s e s s i o n wi t h i nt e ntt o di s t ribu t e m o r e t han 50 g r am s o f c o c ai ne b as e a nd po s s e s s i o n o f

as ho r t
- ba r r e l e d s ho t gundur i ng andi n r e l at i o n t o adr ug tr a ffic k in gcr im e . M c C r a ya r g u e s t h a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e dw h e n it d e n ie dh is
m ot i on t o su p p re ss b ecau se t h e af f i da vi tsup porti n g t h e w arran tt h at enab l ed t h e coll ect i on of

i n cul pa t ory evi den ce and t h e ef fect u ati on of h is a rrestw as a
“bare bon es” af

f id avit
. H e contends that t h e i ssui n g j u dg e w as not presented United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30207

2 w i t h s uf f i c i e nt i nf

o r m at i o n t o m ak e a pr o ba bl e c aus e de t e r m i nat i o n b e c aus e t he af f i davi tc ont ai ns c onc l uso r y and unco r r obora ted as se r t i ons m ade b y a confi den t i ali n f

orm an tof

du bi ou s r el i abili t y. H e a rgues that t h e i n suff i ci en ci es of t h e a l l eg a ti on s i n the w a r r a n t aff i d a vit ren d er ina p p l i ca b l e th e g oo d -fa i th excepti on t o t h e excl u si on ary rul e. In revi ew i n g a dis t ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof a m ot i on t o su p p re ss, t h i s c ou rt f i r s t de t e r m i ne s w he t he r t he e vi de nc e a ti s s ue w as o bt ai ne d b y l 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-f a ith rel i an ce upon a searc h w a rra n t. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. S h uga rt , 1 1 7 F .3 d8 3 8 , 8 4 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). W e r evi ew t he di st r i ct co u r t ’ s fac t ualf i ndi ngs f

orc l earer r orand i t s l egal c o nc l us i o ns d e n o vo . Un itedS t ate s v. Ja cqu i n ot , 258 F
. 3d 423 , 427 ( 5th C i r. 200 1)
. I f

t h e good-fai t h excepti on app l i es, our i n qu irye n ds, an d the di st ri ct c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t m u s t b e a ffir m e d
. Uni t e d St at e s v . Fr o m an , 355 F. 3d 882, 888 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4)
. H o w e ve r , if t he e xc e pt i o n do e s no ta pply, w e m u stde t e r m i ne w h e th e rth e r e w a s as 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 . I d. A n o ff

ic e r ’s reli a n ce on aw a rra n t i s n ot ob j ectively rea son a b l e a n dthe refore n ot en ti tl ed to th e g o o d -fa ith e x c e p tio n t o th e e x c lu s io n a r yru le if th e u n d e r ly in ga ffid a v it is “bare bo nes , ” i
. e. , s o l ac ki ng i n i ndi c i a o f pr obabl e c ause as t o r enderof f i c i al b e lie f in its e x is te n c e e n tir e lyu n r e a s o n a b le
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mays , 466 F. 3d 3 3 5 , 3 4 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). I f an af f i davi ti s bas ed o n i nf or m at i on s uppl i ed bya c onf i dent i al i nf or m ant , t hi s c our t exam i nes t he i nf or m ant ’ s ver ac i t y and bas i s of know l edge t o de t e r m i ne if

hi s i nf

o r m at i o n i s credi bl e und e rt he “t o t ali t y o f t he ci rc u m s tan ces.” Se ei d. ; Un itedS ta tes v. McKn igh t, 95 3 F
. 2 d89 8 , 90 4 -05 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). D et ect ive M u rph y’ s asser t i on t h at th e in f orm an tha d p rovi ded in fo r m a tio n in th e p a s t t h a t p r o v e dt o b e t r u e , re lia b le , a n dco r r e c t s u ffic ie n tly e s ta b lis h e dth e in fo r m a n t’s v e r a c ity
. Se eMcKnight , 9 5 3 F .2 da t 9 0 4 -0 5 ; seealso Ch ris tia n v . McK

a sk le , 731 F. 2d 1196, 1200 ( 5t h C i r . 1984)
. M or eo ver , D et ec t ive M u r p h y ’s a v e r m e n t s t h a tt h e i n f o r m a n tp e r s o n a l lyob s e rv e dc o c a in ea tM c C r a y ’sN o. 09- 30207

3 r e s i de nc e 4 8 ho ur s b e f o r e t he e xe c ut i o n o f

t he a f f i da vit and t hatt he i nf o r m ant h adpri or exp e rie n ce w ith th e p a ck a g in ga n dd istr ib u tion of na rcotics est abli shed th a t t h e in fo r m a n t h a das u ff i c i e n tb a s i s o f k n o w le d g e . S ee Mack v. C i ty of Abi le ne , 4 61 F. 3d5 47 , 5 51 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6)
. The a f f i da vitf ur t he rs t at e d t hatt he di scl osures m ad e by the conf i den t i ali n f

or m antw e r ec o ns i s t e ntw i t h i n f orm ati on t hatD e t e c t ive M ur phyha d r e c e ive d f r o m o t he rs o ur c e s c o nc e r ni ng unl awf ul dru g act ivi t y at M cC ray’ s hom e. T h u s, t h e i n f

orm ati on contai n ed i n the af f i da vi tw as suf

f i ci en tt o sup port a good

- fai t h concl u si on by an obj ect ivel y reasona bl e of f i cer t h at t h e af

f i da vi ton w h ic h th e w a r r a n t w a s b a s e dw a s a d e q u a te to e s ta b lis h p r o b a b le ca u s e . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. S a tterw h ite , 9 80 F. 2d3 17 , 32 0 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2)
. Ac c o r di ngly, t he di s t r i c tcourtd i d no te r rw he n i tde ni e d M c Cra y’ s m o t i o n t o s upp r e s s t he evi den ce. AF F I RMED.