Opinion ID: 659744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Molina's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence

Text: 10 Defendant Molina contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress physical evidence obtained through a warrant search of his residence. He argues that the warrant was not supported by probable cause that his home contained evidence of his involvement in illegal drug activity, and thus the search was invalid. 11 We will reverse the magistrate's determination of probable cause only if that determination is clearly erroneous. United States v. Garza, 980 F.2d 546, 550 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 275 (9th Cir.1990). 12
13 Defendant Molina contends that the affidavit in support of the search warrant lacked probable cause under Illinois v. Gates because it completely failed to support a belief that the property sought would be found in Molina's home. 14 [A] magistrate is entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept, based on the nature of the evidence and the type of offense. United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir.1986). In the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live. Id.; United States v. Valenzuela, 596 F.2d 824, 829 (9th Cir.1979). 15 The affidavit in the instant case set forth information similar to both United States v. Foster, 711 F.2d 871, 878 (9th Cir.1983), and United States v. Spearman, 532 F.2d 132, 133 (9th Cir.1976), in which this court held that the affidavits sufficiently supported the search warrant based on the above criteria. 16 The facts set forth in the affidavit indicate that Woodworth had sufficient experience to offer his professional opinion as to the likely places inculpatory evidence would be found. Furthermore, the observations made on April 27, 1988 were sufficient to provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for finding that probable cause existed. Thus, the magistrate did not err in relying on Mr. Woodworth's affidavit in finding probable cause existed to support a search warrant of defendant Molina's residence.
17 Defendant Molina also contends that information presented in the affidavit, regarding his activities with his two brothers-in-law on January 20, 1988, was stale with regard to the search warrant issued on May 9, 1988 and executed the next day, on May 10, 1988. 18 A search warrant is not stale where there is sufficient basis to believe, based on a continuing pattern or other good reasons, that the items to be seized are still on the premises. United States v. Gann, 732 F.2d 714, 722 (9th Cir.1984). 19 The warrant to search defendant Molina's residence was based on information that Molina was involved in suspicious activity three-and-a-half months earlier. Based on facts indicating Molina's alleged drug trafficking and money laundering on January 22, 1988, his observed behavior on April 27, 1988, the nature of the suspected criminal activity, and the type of evidence sought, the magistrate could reasonably find that probable cause continued to exist. The search warrant was not improperly granted.