Opinion ID: 716393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Search of 1081 Joe Wright Road

Text: 15
16 In reviewing Cisneros-Silva's memorandum in support of his suppression motion and the transcript on the oral argument of the suppression motion, we found no evidence offered by Cisneros-Silva to establish standing at 1081 Joe Wright Road. The district court found that Cisneros-Silva did not have standing to challenge the 1081 Joe Wright Road search. The district court's denial of his suppression motion for this location is affirmed. 17
18 Unlike Cisneros-Silva, Sanchez-Cervantes has standing to challenge the search of 1081 Joe Wright Road. 19 To establish probable cause, the facts alleged in an affidavit in support of a search warrant must be sufficient to justify a conclusion that the property which is the object of the search is probably on the premises to be searched at the time the warrant is issued. United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2948 (1993). 20 It is reasonable to assume that evidence of drug dealing may be found in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Id. at 1435. In this case, the affidavit in support of the 1081 Joe Wright Road warrant supplied the state court judge with sufficient information to support a conclusion that Sanchez-Cervantes was involved in selling drugs and that he had just moved to 1081 Joe Wright Road with his girlfriend Sandra O'Keefe. Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, the state court judge did not clearly err by finding that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant. 21 In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the Supreme Court held that evidence may be used in the government's case-in-chief when it is obtained by a police officer acting on authority of a warrant later found to be unsupported by probable cause, provided the officer had an objective good faith belief that the warrant was valid. Id. at 922. We hold that the warrant is at least facially valid and reliance upon it was objectively reasonable. See id. at 922-24. 22 Second, Sanchez-Cervantes claims that the search warrant did not permit officers to search a barn located on that property. The premises comprised of a single family residence and a barn structure about 40-50 feet from the residence. The driveway from the street to the residence also leads to the barn. There was a well-worn snow-packed pathway between the residence and the structure indicating recent movement from the residence to the barn. A fence surrounding the premises encompassed both the residence and the detached barn. Power lines connected the residence to the barn. 23 The test as to whether a portion of a premise is covered by a search warrant is whether or not the defendant is in control of the whole premises. United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461, 1467 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 844 (1986). Given that a fence surrounded the house and the barn, the well-worn pathway, and the power lines, Sanchez-Cervantes was in control of the whole premises and the warrant covered the barn. 24 Therefore, the district court's denial of Sanchez-Cervantes' motion to suppress the evidence from the search of 1081 Joe Wright Road is affirmed.