Opinion ID: 2935898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: motion to suppress evidence of traffic stop

Text: AND SEARCH WARRANT Bilus filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained during his vehicle stop, and to invalidate the search warrant. Both motions were denied following an evidentiary hearing. An appellate court reviews a district court’s findings of fact on denial of a motion to suppress evidence for clear error, and the district court’s application of law to the facts de novo. United States v. Tate, 586 F.3d 936, 942 (11th Cir. 2009). The issue of whether an affidavit executed in support of a search warrant established probable cause is reviewed de novo. United States v. Mathis, 767 F.3d 1264, 1275 (11th Cir. 2014). The district court found that the traffic stop was supported by Bilus’s failure to use a turn signal and the “totality of the circumstances,” which included the following considerations: 10 A person commits “lewd and lascivious battery” under Florida law by “[e]ngaging in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age.” Fla. Stat. § 800.04(4)(a)(1) (alteration supplied). “Sexual activity” is defined as “the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object.” Fla. Stat. § 800.04(1)(a). 11 See supra note 6. 9 Case: 14-12269 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 10 of 50 Here, the officer testified that he knew the area to be a high crime area, with narcotics sales, shootings, and burglaries including one involving a church near the field where the defendant stopped. He also was told of the car’s suspicious driving pattern: circling (multiple times) a neighborhood where the officer knew that the car did not belong to any of the residents; then stopping for a while in a field near an empty church at 10:40 p.m.; and then leaving the area without visiting any of the residences on the street. Also, the officer observed the car turn onto a small road the officer believed to be a dead-end, and testified that he knew the car was not associated with any of the residents of the street. The car then proceeded to suddenly turn around. Taken together, these circumstances provide more than a reasonable, articulable suspicion based on objective facts that the car’s owner was engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal activity. An investigative stop under such circumstances does not violate the Fourth Amendment. ECF No. 35, at 10-11. The district court also held that the search warrant had been “properly applied for and issued,” id. at 11, based upon the following findings: the warrant affidavit contained sufficient facts to support each element of the state offense of traveling to meet a minor; the search for child pornography was sufficiently related to the charged state offense; any errors or misstatements in the warrant affidavit were immaterial; 12 there was a sufficient connection between the 12 As the district court observed in its order addressing Bilus’s motions to suppress, the defendant did point out one clear error in the Search Warrant affidavit, which the detective admitted in his testimony. The Affidavit stated that “Robert Brandon Bilus was charged with unlawful contact with a minor a misdemeanor level charge in violation of Florida Statutes.” This statement is misleading [because], as previously noted, Robert Brandon Bilus at the time was charged with the 10 Case: 14-12269 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 11 of 50 state offense alleged in the warrant affidavit and Bilus’s residence; 13 and, the warrant application was not overbroad. Id. at 12-17. After de novo review, the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress will be affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court.