Opinion ID: 604572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of Affidavit.

Text: 7 We need not decide whether use of an infrared sensing device to detect heat emissions violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches because there is sufficient evidence in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause independent of the results of the thermal imager. See United States v. Feeney, No. 91-10589, slip op. 837, 843, 1993 WL 17727 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 1993); United States v. Kerr, 876 F.2d 1440, 1443-44 (9th Cir.1989). The affidavit indicated that: 8 (1) Shipping boxes addressed to Lee Roberts were found on the premises of a known marijuana cultivator; 9 (2) Lee Roberts received numerous shipments in July 1989 and August and September 1990 from businesses known to the DEA to supply equipment and seeds for indoor marijuana cultivation; 10 (3) Leeson personally retrieved packages addressed to Lee Roberts on four occasions; 11 (4) After picking up boxes, Leeson drove in a circuitous manner (including making U-turns and going down dead-end streets); 12 (5) Drug traffickers commonly use aliases of the type where a name like Robert Leeson is turned into Lee Roberts; 13 (6) An issue of High Times magazine, a publication for persons interested in marijuana, was found in trash which Leeson had discarded away from his home. On another occasion, Leeson discarded an empty box from Light Manufacturing Co. in a dumpster away from his home; 14 (7) Utility records for Leeson's residence showed that he was using a lot of electricity and water; and 15 (8) Rooftop air conditioners and vents commonly used to vent indoor marijuana cultivations were observed at Leeson's residence. 16 These facts provide a substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude that there was a fair probability that marijuana was being grown in Leeson's residence. See Feeney, slip op. at 842-43; United States v. Motz, 936 F.2d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir.1991); Kerr, 876 F.2d at 1444-45. Thus, the district court did not err in denying Leeson's motion to suppress. 17 Leeson failed to make a preliminary showing that false statements material to a finding of probable cause were intentionally or recklessly included in the warrant affidavit. Similarly, there was no showing of intentional or reckless material omissions. Thus, he was not entitled to a hearing to investigate the veracity of the affiant, pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). 18 Leeson objected to the following statements by the affiant: three companies from which Leeson received packages were regarded by DEA as suppliers of equipment and seeds for indoor marijuana cultivation, drug traffickers commonly use aliases, and a check of local criminal records revealed a positive record for Leeson. Although it is possible to infer more from these statements than appears on their face (e.g., that the companies only sell to drug dealers), there is nothing to indicate that the magistrate drew those inferences. Moreover, a Franks hearing would not be illuminating in that regard. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Leeson's motion for a Franks hearing. 19 Leeson also alleged that evidence should be suppressed because the government improperly destroyed the seized marijuana plants. Leeson failed to demonstrate either bad faith by the government or prejudice. See United States v. Heffington, 952 F.2d 275, 280-81 (9th Cir.1991). The government complied with 21 U.S.C. § 881(f)(2) and 28 C.F.R. § 50.21(e) in destroying the plants. Leeson was not prejudiced because evidence of the number and condition of the plants was preserved on film. Indeed, Leeson admitted to the number of plants and cuttings at the sentencing hearing. 1 The district court properly denied the motion for suppression. 20