Opinion ID: 589445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Search of the 3721 Palos Verdes Drive residence

Text: 4 Bantula, Avana, and Arias challenge the district court's refusal to suppress evidence seized from the Palos Verdes stash house. They argue that the warrant authorizing the search was not based on probable cause, because police surveillance only established probable cause to search the rear of the residence, where co-defendant Perez earlier had driven the load car, not inside the residence. 5 In reviewing the issuance of a search warrant, we must determine whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that the affidavit in support of the warrant established probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983). This standard of review is less probing than de novo review and shows deference to the issuing magistrate's determination. United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir.1986). The magistrate need only conclude that it would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place stated in the affidavit. United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 847 (1985). 6 There was a sufficient nexus between the activities of Perez and the Palos Verdes house to establish probable cause for the search of the house interior. According to the affidavit, the police saw Perez drive to the rear of the house and then disappear from their sight for ten minutes, during which time he picked up the 50 kilograms of cocaine. Defendants contend that the affidavit fails to include facts which link the cocaine with the residence rather than the backyard--such as the observation of people leaving the house with boxes or other containers of cocaine. It was reasonable, however, for the police and magistrate to conclude that the defendants kept the cocaine inside the house, rather than in the backyard for all to see. See Peacock, 761 F.2d at 1315. It was also reasonable to conclude that Perez had driven to the rear of the residence so that the cocaine could be loaded into the car without attracting attention from neighbors. Cf. United States v. Bertrand, 926 F.2d 838, 840-42 (9th Cir.1991) (affidavit provided probable cause to search outlying real property of residence notwithstanding the fact that police believed that the drug lab was located in the residence). 7 The defendants' reliance on United States v. Howard, 828 F.2d 552 (9th Cir.1987), is misplaced. In Howard, this court concluded that no probable cause existed for the warrantless search of a house, because the police had, at best, a reasonable suspicion to believe that a drug lab existed in the detached garage of the property. Id. at 554-55. In contrast, the officers here did not see the cocaine come from a particular structure other than the house, such as a detached garage. Furthermore, the officers were aware that Perez was planning to make a second delivery of cocaine; thus, they were justified in believing that this additional cocaine would also be at the Palos Verdes property. We therefore affirm the denial of the defendants' motion to suppress evidence from the Palos Verdes house. 8