Opinion ID: 551535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: warrant issues

Text: 21 Hicks raises these issues concerning warrants: 22 For the search at 9800 N.W. 25th Avenue on April 27, 1987: 23 --Denial of motion to suppress physical evidence seized. 24 --Partial denial of a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). 25 For the search at 2000 N.W. 105th Street on July 25, 1987: 26 --Denial of motion to suppress physical evidence seized. 27 --Denial of motion for a Franks hearing. 28 At the end of a November 2, 1987 hearing the court identified three unresolved motions: both of the motions concerning 9800 N.W. 25th Avenue and, as to 2000 N.W. 105th Street, the motion to suppress physical evidence. The next morning, and continuing on to the morning of November 4, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motions concerning 9800 N.W. 25th. It granted the request for a Franks hearing to the extent of examination of the affiant agent concerning his statement that he considered the confidential informant reliable and denied the motion to examine the confidential informant concerning her credibility. After the parties rested the court began an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress evidence seized at 2000 N.W. 105th Street. At that point Hicks attempted to raise a Franks challenge to the veracity of the affidavit supporting the warrant. The district court granted the government's objection on the basis that the motion was untimely. Later it reaffirmed that ruling but also denied the motion on the merits. 29 As to the motion to suppress evidence seized at 9800 N.W. 25th Avenue: the court did not err in finding that there was adequate probable cause. Hicks's major contention on this issue is that the reliability of the confidential informant, on whose information the affidavit was based, was insufficiently established by the affiant's conclusory statement that she was a reliable, confidential informant who had provided information in the past that had proved to be reliable. The information set out as supplied by the informant was complete, specific and detailed information, the type we have referred to as self-corroborating. U.S. v. Haimowitz, 706 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069, 104 S.Ct. 974, 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984). The information described names, dates, addresses, specific events occurring at 2000 N.W. 105th Street, the actors in those events, amounts of money, packaging of money, packaging of cocaine, automobiles utilized and their movements, and a host of other specific information. Hicks was described as a major actor who slept at the house and used it as a personal stash house; this was corroborated by the affiant's own knowledge, included in the affidavit, that searches of residences owned by Hicks had revealed drugs, drug ledgers, documents, jewelry, currency and other evidence of narcotics trafficking. The magistrate did not err in finding probable cause. 30 There is no merit to the contention that once alleged false statements are redacted from the affidavit probable cause is lacking, and to the argument that, even if the warrant was otherwise sufficient, there was no probable cause to search for documents. The warrant was not overbroad. The property described as located at 9800 N.W. 25th Street was cocaine, documents, letters, photographs, business records, and other evidence relating to narcotics trafficking. Reasonably read, this language is directed to materials having a nexus to narcotics trafficking. We hold that this language meets the standards of practical accuracy that enable the searcher to ascertain and identify things authorized to be seized. The contention that the affidavit provided no reasonable basis to search for documents, letters, photos and business records is frivolous. The affidavit placed Hicks at the premises with $250,000 to be used to buy cocaine, and returning three hours later with white powder that appeared to be cocaine. Hicks referred to it in obscene terms often applied to cocaine. The affidavit described the premises as a protected stash house used by Hicks to secure valuable personal property such as jewelry, documents and cash and stated that Hicks sleeps at the residence. The residence was owned by Hicks's nephew, and previous searches of residences owned by Hicks himself had revealed drugs, drug ledgers, documents, jewelry, currency, and other evidence of narcotics trafficking. 31 In execution of the warrant there was not an impermissible seizure of jewelry belonging to Hicks. The jewelry (stated by the government to be valued at over $400,000) was located in a house cluttered with cocaine, packaging materials, processing paraphernalia, ledgers, large amounts of cash, weapons, and ammunition. It is disingenuous to suggest that in these circumstances the jewelry was not evidence of narcotics trafficking. 32 As to the motion for a Franks hearing concerning 9800 N.W. 25th Avenue: the court granted a hearing with respect to examination of the affiant agent. It denied a hearing to examine the confidential informant as to her reliability, relying on the Supreme Court's limiting language in Franks itself: The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any non-governmental informant. 438 U.S. at 171, 98 S.Ct. at 2684. The court ruled that Hicks had not supported by affidavit his conclusory allegation that Plez was an agent of the government, his affidavit having addressed the accuracy of Plez's statements and not her role. The following day, November 3, while motion to suppress hearing was in progress, Hicks asked for reconsideration by a motion that did not contain affidavits but referred to alleged record evidence. The court denied the request. 33 Plez was not an agent or instrumentality of the government within the meaning of Franks. Hicks's contention would open up to Franks hearings the whole world of the compensated, non-official civilian informant. Franks opened government agents to examination on proper showing but shielded informants. The decision nowhere implies that compensated civilian informants are to be open to examination by titling them government agents, and we decline to so extend it. 34 As to the motion to suppress evidence seized at 2000 N.W. 105 th Street: the warrant authorized search of premises consisting of a house, garage, another building within the curtilage, and a screened swimming pool, all surrounded by a wall. The affidavit described a scenario in which the two affiant officers set up a buy by a confidential informant to take place at the premises. They observed the informant enter the premises, enter the garage area and then the swimming pool area and converse with persons in that area. The informant emerged some minutes later, delivered to the affiants cocaine and change from the government-supplied money, and stated that the cocaine was purchased and delivered at the screened patio area (which the parties construe in their briefs to mean the swimming pool area). Hicks and his wife are owners and residents of the premises. Hicks contends probable cause is lacking because the affidavit does not identify him or his wife as the seller or even as present, the cocaine sold was a small amount that could have been concealed on the person of a third-party seller merely present, and the transaction at the pool does not support searching the adjacent house. The sale took place at the premises. The warrant authorized search of the premises for cocaine, titles, receipts and other documents and records evidencing illegal activity. The finding of probable cause was not error. The warrant was not overbroad. The seizure of currency was authorized. The firearms were not improperly seized, though not named in the warrant. They are tools of the trade. U.S. v. Montes-Cardenas, 746 F.2d 771, 776-77 (11th Cir.1984); U.S. v. Rodriquez, 765 F.2d 1546, 1562 (11th Cir.1985); U.S. v. $41,305 in Currency, 802 F.2d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir.1986). The firearms were found in sleeping areas where officers had a right to be pursuant to a valid warrant and they were plainly visible. There was probable cause to believe the items were evidence or contraband. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 1153, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). 35 With respect to Hicks's attempt to raise a Franks challenge to the 2000 N.W. 105th Street warrant: the court had ordered that all pretrial motions be filed by August 25. This motion surfaced when, on November 4, hearing was beginning on Hick's motion (filed August 25) to suppress evidence under the warrant. The court denied the Franks request as untimely. Later the court reaffirmed this ruling and also denied the motion on its merits. The court did not err on either ground. 36 The district court has the authority to establish a schedule of deadlines for defendants to file motions and requests prior to trial under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. By failing to file his motion within the deadlines set by the court a defendant waives his right to assert this motion. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(f). The court may grant relief from such a waiver upon a showing of cause. Id. See generally U.S. v. Milian-Rodriguez, 828 F.2d 679 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1054, 108 S.Ct. 2820, 100 L.Ed.2d 921 (1988). We review a denial of the motion on grounds of untimeliness under an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. v. Taylor, 792 F.2d 1019, 1025 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1030, 107 S.Ct. 1958, 95 L.Ed.2d 530 (1987). 37 Hicks's timely motion to suppress did not expressly make a Franks request, and his argument that it impliedly made such a request has no merit. (With respect to evidence seized at 9800 N.W. 25th Street, Hicks had filed a motion to suppress and a separate motion for a Franks hearing.) Hicks had an opportunity as late as November 2 and 3 to notify the court and the government of his request for a Franks examination but did not do so. Beyond arguing that his request was subsumed in the motion to suppress, Hicks has not attempted to establish cause for untimeliness. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hicks's request as untimely. We need not address the denial on the merits beyond saying that the court's denial was not erroneous.