Opinion ID: 560367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($18,000.00).

Text: 40 This search was conducted without probable cause, without a warrant specifying the particular place to be searched and in violation of United States Constitution Amendment Four. 41 Record on Appeal, Vol. 1, at 17 (emphasis added). The motion requested that the district court suppress the marijuana and $18,000.00 obtained from [t]his search. The only searches involving marijuana and $18,000.00 were the searches conducted in September of 1989. 4 Hamilton states that if his motion was not specific enough to include the 1988 search, it was because the government made it impossible for him to be more specific by failing to inform him that the gun was going to be used as evidence against him. This excuse is untenable. Count One of the indictment against Hamilton clearly states that he illegally possessed the rifle and goes on to list its make and serial number. See Record on Appeal, Vol. 1, at 1. Even if the district court had considered Hamilton's motion to suppress to include the rifle, we find that such a motion would have failed. 42 The district court heard testimony from Clifford Scales about the shooting which led to Hamilton's arrest and seizure of the rifle, see Record on Appeal, Vol. 2, at 32-38, and it also heard testimony from the sheriff who obtained a warrant for Hamilton's arrest and found him in possession of the semi-automatic rifle, see id. at 134-36. This testimony served as part of the basis for the district court's conviction of Hamilton. See Record on Appeal, Vol. 2, at 154, 189. Such testimony was more than sufficient to establish probable cause for the March 1988 arrest of Hamilton and seizure of the semi-automatic rifle. The district court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence.