Opinion ID: 146972
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence from 15 Johnson Drive Trailer

Text: Johnson argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his trailer home because the warrant affidavit lacked sufficient corroboration of the CI’s information.1 Probable cause to support a search warrant exists when the totality of the circumstances allows the conclusion that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983). “The task of the magistrate issuing a warrant is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information” that probable cause exists. Id. Under Gates’s totality-of-the-circumstances evaluation, “‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ are no longer viewed as independent prerequisites to a finding of probable cause: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of the tip, by a strong 1 A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress presents “a mixed question of law and fact.” United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961, 966 (11th Cir. 2008). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, construing all facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, and its application of the law to those facts de novo. Id. Accordingly, we review “determinations of probable cause de novo, but we review findings of historical fact only for clear error and . . . give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” United States v. Talley, 108 F.3d 277, 281 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted, omission in original). 5 showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability such as corroborating evidence gathered by law enforcement.” United States v. Foree, 43 F.3d 1572, 1576 (11th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court did not err in concluding that Investigator Josh McAlister’s affidavit provided a sufficient basis for finding probable cause to search Johnson’s trailer home. McAlister averred that a CI, who had “proven to be reliable in the past,” was at Johnson’s residence within the last 48 hours and saw Johnson in possession of crack cocaine within that residence. McAlister swore that the CI had provided similar information that “resulted in numerous narcotics arrest[s] and convictions.” Additionally, McAlister averred that: (1) over the past two years, the TCNTF, along with other state and federal agencies, “ha[d] been receiving information concerning narcotics being distributed from [Johnson’s] residence”; and (2) Johnson had three outstanding Tallapoosa County arrest warrants for trafficking in cocaine.2 We reject Johnson’s argument that additional corroborative details were needed to establish probable cause. According to McAlister’s affidavit, the CI not 2 Although McAlister’s affidavit did not indicate as much, these three outstanding warrants were based on the three controlled buys McAlister conducted with Taylor in 2005. However, at the suppression hearing, McAlister testified that he briefly described to the issuing judge the details of the Johnson investigation, which TCNTF had been working on for several years, and the outstanding trafficking warrants. 6 only had proved reliable in the past, but also had provided the kind of information that had led to other narcotics arrests and convictions. Cf. Foree, 43 F.3d 1575-76 (explaining that general allegations of reliability that do not indicate whether the information provided was important or led to searches, arrests or convictions are entitled to only slight weight). Further, the CI’s information was based on firsthand observation and included details such as when and where the CI saw Johnson in possession of cocaine. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 234, 103 S. Ct. at 2330 (explaining that explicit and detailed firsthand accounts by an informant are given “greater weight than might otherwise be the case”). And, the CI’s information was corroborated by two years’ of intelligence from law enforcement indicating Johnson was dealing drugs from his trailer home and by Johnson’s three outstanding arrest warrants for cocaine trafficking. See Foree, 43 F.3d at 1576 (stating that police intelligence reports can corroborate the CI’s information). Under the totality of the circumstances, the issuing judge “had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39, 103 S. Ct. at 2332 (quotation marks, ellipsis and brackets omitted). Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of Johnson’s trailer home.