Opinion ID: 43414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Suppression Motion

Text: Manning filed a second motion to suppress, arguing that the search warrant 6 in his case was based on an affidavit containing false information and that the inclusion of that information amounted to a reckless disregard for the truth. The search warrant was issued as a result of an affidavit submitted by officer Hunnings. The Hunnings affidavit indicated that during their investigation of Manning, the officers used Anthony Sanders, a confidential informant (CI), to make three purchases. Prior to each purchase they searched Sanders to ensure he did not possess cocaine, equipped him with audio or video recording equipment, provided him with cash, and sent him to Manning’s apartment to buy cocaine. Each time, Sanders returned with cocaine. According to Manning, after the government revealed that Sanders was the confidential informant, Sanders contacted Baucham, who formerly served as a CI, for advice. According to Manning, Sanders admitted to Baucham that he had not purchased cocaine from Manning, but had only entered Manning’s residence and spoken to him briefly. Prior to being searched by the officers, Sanders hid drugs in his mouth, and those were the drugs he gave to the officers when he returned from Manning’s apartment. Sanders told Baucham that, in exchange for his assistance, officer Jeff Lockley promised to pay Sanders, to allow him to keep some of the drugs, and not to interfere with his personal drug transactions. Manning argued that Sanders was a drug user with numerous felony 7 convictions, and thus was unreliable. Further, the officers supervising Sanders’s transactions with Manning did not maintain visual surveillance and did not conduct a reasonable search of Sanders prior to his meetings with Manning. Manning also asserted that the video recording of one of the transactions did not actually capture a transaction, but only showed Manning holding money and a bag that might or might not have contained drugs, and that the quality of the audio recording of a second transaction was so poor that it was impossible to tell whether a drug transaction occurred. Under these circumstances, Manning argued that Hunnings should have known that Sanders was lying about the controlled buys and that Hunnings’s inclusion of the controlled buys in the affidavit demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth. The district court held a hearing, at which Baucham testified that Sanders approached him and told him he had given drugs to officer Hunning, but that he had not obtained those drugs from Manning. Sanders told Baucham about two occasions in which he approached Manning to talk about drugs, but neither he nor Manning ever mentioned drugs. According to Baucham, Sanders hid drugs in his mouth, which officers never searched, and later gave the officers the drugs he had hidden. Baucham further testified that Sanders was a drug user. Officer Hunnings testified that he searched Sanders’s person, bicycle, and 8 clothing before the controlled buys, but did not search his mouth. Sanders spoke normally before the buys, and it never occurred to officer Hunnings to search Sanders’s mouth. The officers monitored Sanders through a radio transmitter and/or watched him constantly as he traveled to and from Manning’s apartment.1 officer Hunnings did not see Sanders retrieve hidden drugs or money. The government also played a videotape of the third controlled buy, and officer Hunnings indicated that in the video, Manning had money in his hand and appeared to be retrieving a plastic baggy containing crack rocks. Officer Hunnings testified that he believed he witnessed a crack deal. Officer Hunnings also indicated that when Sanders returned from the buy, he gave Hunnings an amount of crack cocaine that was consistent with the amount of money Hunnings had given Sanders for the purchase. Officer Hunnings testified that to his knowledge, officer Lockley never told Sanders that he could buy or keep crack cocaine. Officer Hunnings was aware of Sanders’s significant criminal history. However, Sanders was paid the same for each transaction whether or not he successfully purchased drugs; he had previously provided reliable information in 15-20 cases with officer Hunnings and in other 1 During the second controlled buy, officers did not maintain constant visual contact since Sanders had a video recorder. The video, however, became unplugged and did not record the transaction. 9 cases with other officers; and he was searched and monitored closely. Under these circumstances, Hunnings testified he had no reason to believe that Sanders had faked the controlled buys. The district court denied Manning’s motion, finding that Manning failed to show that Hunning had a reckless disregard for the truth. The court concluded that the evidence presented at the hearing refuted Manning’s argument that Hunning should have known Sanders was lying because the video tape corroborated Sanders’s representation to Hunning that he purchased drugs from Manning. Even if Sanders faked the buys, Hunning took reasonable precautions to ensure the legitimacy of the controlled buys by searching Sanders’s person and bicycle and supervising Sanders either visually or through recording devices.