Opinion ID: 781217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accurate Portrayal of the Informant's Tip

Text: 20 Elliott argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that the search warrant affidavit prepared by Officer Kempke did not intentionally or recklessly misrepresent the information provided by Lindsey. He points to Officer Kempke's testimony that Lindsey never actually used the word possession when describing Elliott's relationship to the methamphetamine and weighing scales. We see no material falsity in Officer Kempke's use of the word possession to describe the information Lindsey had given him. Lindsey told Officer Kempke that he saw an ounce of methamphetamine and weighing scales on the living room coffee table, and that the drugs were right in front of them as Lindsey sat and talked with Elliott, Kelly, and Benedict about the drugs and drug sales. We have long held that a person is in `possession' of something `if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it.' United States v. Cain, 130 F.3d 381, 382 (9th Cir.1997) (citations and emphasis omitted). While the affidavit could have been more specific, the information Lindsey presented to Officer Kempke was consistent with Elliott's presence and control over the drugs and scales. We cannot conclude that the accurate use of a legal term constitutes a materially false statement. 21 Elliott also points to Lindsey's unsworn statements to defense investigators that the affidavit misstated his tip as proof that the affidavit contained false information. However, Lindsey's sworn testimony that he lied to the investigators and that the affidavit was indeed accurate supports the district court's finding that the affidavit did not misstate his tip. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. United States v. Working, 224 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Moreover, the district court found Lindsey's testimony at the hearing to be credible, and we pay special deference to a trial court's credibility findings. United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094, 1110 (9th Cir.1998). Thus, we do not have a definite and firm conviction that the district court made a mistake in finding that the affidavit did not intentionally or recklessly misstate Lindsey's information. Maldonado, 215 F.3d at 1050. 22