Opinion ID: 427101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sixto vega

Text: 7 Vega, the operator of Dade County Services, argues that the warrant obtained to authorize a search of his premises was not supported by probable cause. He also claims that there was insufficient evidence against him on each count.
8 Federal Drug Enforcement Agent Nick Zapata filed an affidavit with his request for a search warrant in which he related information provided by a confidential informant. The informant, who had provided reliable information before in non-drug cases, advised Zapata that Vega was involved in drug trafficking. Specifically, the affidavit stated that Vega had told the informant that he had brought approximately 200 pounds of wet methaquaalone pills to Dade County Services. 5 In addition, the informant claimed to have personally seen the drugs the evening before the warrant was issued. Vega challenges the informant's tip as being insufficient to create the probable cause necessary for the issuance of a search warrant. 9 Following the decision of Illinois v. Gates, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the evaluation of a search warrant based upon informant information involves an inquiry into the totality of circumstances presented in the supporting affidavit. Id. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d at 548. We therefore must assess whether there was sufficient information to allow a magistrate to conclude the existence of probable cause. United States v. Sorrels, 714 F.2d 1522 at 1528 (11th Cir.1983). Given the traditional deference to a magistrate's decision that probable cause exists, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 590, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), the warrant will be upheld on review so long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that the search would reveal evidence of crime. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). Accord Illinois v. Gates, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2331, 76 L.Ed.2d at 547. 10 We readily find on this record that the magistrate did have a substantial basis for such a conclusion. First, the affidavit related that the informant had previously provided information that led to a seizure of counterfeit money. See United States v. Anderson, 500 F.2d 1311, 1313 n. 4 (5th Cir.1974) (allegation that informant's tips have led to seizure of evidence establishes reliability). See also W. LaFave, Search and Seizure Sec. 3.3, at 511 (1978) (informant's tip that leads to discovery of evidence may, as a general proposition, be more indicative of reliability than one leading merely to arrest or conviction). 6 Second, the informant was explicitly told that he would be subject to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 if he knowingly and willfully gave false information to Agent Zapata. Third, the informant claimed he was told directly by Vega that illegal drugs were present at Dade County Services. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 425, 89 S.Ct. at 593 (White, J., concurring) (If ... the informer's hearsay comes from one of the actors in the crime in the nature of admission against interest, the affidavit giving this information should be held sufficient). Finally, the informant claimed to have seen the drugs on the premises immediately before the search. While the affidavit did not recount how the informant knew the substance to be illicit drugs, 7 the statement of Vega that drugs were on the premises lent credence to the observation. All the facts together amply lead us to conclude that the magistrate did have a substantial basis for issuing the warrant.
11 To sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute, the government must prove (1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute it. United States v. Richards, 638 F.2d 765, 768 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S.Ct. 669, 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981). Vega's admission that the drugs found at the warehouse belonged to him is sufficient proof of the first two elements of the crime. Given the quantity of diazepam and cutting agents found on the premises and Vega's statement that he was in the drug business, a reasonable jury could have appropriately inferred an intent to distribute. United States v. Thomas, 676 F.2d 531, 535 (11th Cir.1982). Therefore, the evidence presented against Vega on the possession count was such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d at 549. 12 With regard to the conspiracy charge, the basic element which must be proved is an agreement between two or more persons to violate federal narcotics law. United States v. Lee, 694 F.2d 649, 652 (11th Cir.1983). Vega's admission that he obtained the drugs from an unnamed Colombian and that he was engaged in drug trade warrants an inference of an agreement to possess diazepam with intent to distribute so as to sustain the conviction for conspiracy. 8