Opinion ID: 665566
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suppression of Evidence--Ross and Falconer

Text: 22 Ross and Falconer contend that the district court should have suppressed the evidence gathered at 204 East 62nd Street because the search warrant was not based on probable cause. Probable cause exists when, considering the totality of the circumstances, 'there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'  United States v. Ocampo, 937 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). We review a magistrate's issuance of a search warrant for clear error. United States v. Bertrand, 926 F.2d 838, 841 (9th Cir.1991). 23 Ross and Falconer argue that there were no allegations in [Agent Veal's] affidavit to indicate that it would be reasonable to seek evidence in the house located at 204 East 62nd Street. Falconer's Opening Brief at 20. We disagree. The affidavit strongly indicated that drug sales were occurring in the apartment. The affidavit connected the house to the apartment via Ross. It stated that Ross came out of the apartment, moved his car from in front of the house to in front of the apartment, entered the house, came back out and gave some keys to a person who entered the apartment, and drove away. The person who entered the apartment (later identified as Thigpen) then sold CI Martin cocaine. Ross returned, reentered the house, came out, and went over to talk through the window to somebody in the apartment. The affidavit also states that the cocaine sales at the apartment were conducted by the East Coast Crips, and that Ross was a member of the East Coast Crips. Finally, Agent Veal stated that, based on his eight years of police experience, drug dealers typically keep drugs at a stash house different from the distribution location, and that he believed the house to be a stash house. 24 The fact that the affidavit very clearly establishes probable cause for the apartment bears on the probable cause determination for the house. Ross and Falconer rely primarily on United States v. Ramos, 923 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir.1991), in which this court held there was no probable cause to search a house that a person performing counter-surveillance driving stopped at for twenty minutes. But in that case there was no concrete evidence of drug transactions at that house or anywhere else at the time the warrant was issued. Id. at 1349-50 (affidavit contained only circumstantial evidence such as suspicious driving, unloading of boxes). This was also the case in United States v. Huguez-Ibarra, 954 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir.1992) (no probable cause for search of house; house was frequently visited, sometimes by people with some connection to drugs in their pasts, but there was no direct evidence of drug activity). In this case, on the other hand, there was abundant direct evidence of drug transactions at the apartment. 25 Of course, there still must be some nexus between the house and the drug activity in the apartment. The affidavit's description of Ross' behavior suggests he was more than a mere neighbor or acquaintance of the occupants of the apartment: all in one morning he came out of the apartment before entering his car, exchanged keys with a person who then entered the apartment, and talked through the window with somebody in the apartment. While none of this is in itself suspicious activity, it becomes so in light of the fact that cocaine sales were being conducted openly, around the clock, at the apartment. United States v. Baron, 860 F.2d 911, 916-17 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1040 (1989) (discussing when it is appropriate to presume defendant had knowledge of illicit activity). And it becomes more so in light of the affidavit's statement that Ross was a member of the Crips, and that the Crips ran the cocaine operation at the apartment. United States v. Brown, 951 F.2d 999, 1002-03 (9th Cir.1992) (discussing when membership in criminal organization supports probable cause). 26 Finally, Agent Veal stated that drug distribution operations often have a stash house independent of the distribution location. He stated that, based on his experience, he thought Ross' house was part of the cocaine operation. Agents' professional opinions are accorded a good deal of weight in such circumstances. United States v. Seybold, 726 F.2d 502, 504 (9th Cir.1984). This does not mean that we defer to agents' unsubstantiated or conclusory statements. However, even relatively few facts--if derived from an Agent's observations and analyzed based on his or her experience and training--may allow the Agent to make sound professional judgments that would not be apparent to the lay observer. For these reasons, Agent Veal's conclusion that Ross's house was also involved in the cocaine operation appropriately could be considered by the magistrate. 27 In sum, the following factors support the probable cause finding: strong evidence of drug activity in the apartment, the likelihood that Ross had been in the apartment and seen evidence of the drug sales, his membership in the same gang that ran the drug operation, his association and exchange of keys with Thigpen, who thereupon sold CI Martin cocaine, and Agent Veal's professional assessment that, based on these facts, Ross' house was likely to be involved in the drug operation. Based on these facts, we conclude that the magistrate was not clearly in error in issuing the warrant here. 3 28