Court Opinion

ID: 9841229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:01:01.905601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:05.871678
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30148         Document: 00516903569             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                              FILED
                                                                        September 21, 2023
                                       No. 23-30148                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                            Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Ronnie K. Hongo, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 5:21-CR-217-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Ronnie K. Hongo, Jr.,
   conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with the intent
   to distribute and using and carrying a firearm in connection with a drug-
   trafficking offense. He was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment and a
   five-year term of supervised release.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30148      Document: 00516903569           Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 23-30148

          On appeal, Hongo challenges the denial of the motion to suppress,
   urging that the district court erred in applying the good faith exception to the
   exclusionary rule. On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we
   review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and conclusions of
   law de novo. United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir. 2006). We
   view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party—here,
   the Government. Id. And we affirm the district court’s denial of
   a suppression motion “if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to
   support it.” United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en
   banc) (quoting United States v. Register, 931 F.2d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 1991)).
          “We employ a two-step process when reviewing a district court’s
   denial of a motion to suppress when a search warrant is involved.” United
   States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1999). First, we determine
   whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Id. “The
   good faith exception bars the application of the exclusionary rule to exclude
   evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant if law enforcement officers act under
   an objectively reasonable, good faith belief that the search warrant in question
   is valid—even if it, in fact, is not.” United States v. Jarman, 847 F.3d 259,
   264 (5th Cir. 2017). If the good faith exception applies, we affirm the district
   court’s denial of the motion to suppress. Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. If it does
   not, we continue to the second step, where we “ensure that the magistrate
   had a substantial basis for . . . concluding that probable cause existed.” Id.
   (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d
   1120, 1129 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 819 (1997)). The defendant bears
   the burden of establishing that the good faith exception does not apply. See
   Jarman, 847 F.3d at 264.
          Hongo argues that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule
   does not apply. He contends that the warrant failed to specify the items to be
   searched with the requisite particularity and thus was so facially deficient that

                                          2
Case: 23-30148      Document: 00516903569           Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 23-30148

   no objectively reasonable officer could rely on it. Hongo says that the
   accompanying affidavit did not cure the deficiency because, he says, it was
   not physically attached to the warrant at the time of the search and was not
   presented to the residents or the officers who performed the search.
          Hondo’s arguments are unavailing. Unlike Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S.
   551, 557–58 (2004), on which Hongo relies, the search warrant here explicitly
   incorporated by reference the accompanying affidavit, which listed the items
   sought in the search. And “[i]n reviewing challenges to particularity[,] we
   read the warrant as a whole, including its accompanying affidavit and
   attachments.” United States v. Aguirre, 664 F.3d 606, 614 (5th Cir. 2011); see
   also United States v. Triplett, 684 F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 2012) (“The law
   permits an affidavit incorporated by reference to amplify particularity . . . .”);
   United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 560 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting the
   same). Hongo’s particularity argument thus fails.
          Hongo’s argument that the warrant was invalid because the officers
   did not give him or his girlfriend the supporting affidavit also fails. In United
   States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98–99 (2006), the Supreme Court held the
   Fourth Amendment does not require an executing officer to give the property
   owner a copy of the warrant or attachments before the search. In light of
   Grubbs, there is no “Fourth Amendment right to obtain warrant
   attachments.” Schanzle v. Haberman, 831 F. App’x 103, 106 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Finally, Hongo’s argument that the executing officers were not shown
   the affidavit and did not know what they were searching for is not supported
   by the record. At the suppression hearing, Lieutenant Branam, the officer
   who prepared the affidavit and warrant, testified that he brought the warrant
   and a copy of the affidavit to the scene when he executed the warrant. He also
   testified that he was aware of the items that were listed in the affidavit and
   could be seized. Likewise, Sergeant Steinke, one of the deputies involved in

                                           3
Case: 23-30148        Document: 00516903569        Page: 4   Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                    No. 23-30148

   the warrant’s execution, testified that the officers discussed the warrant
   during a pre-execution briefing and knew they were looking for
   methamphetamine. That Sgt. Steinke could not recall whether the affidavit
   was specifically discussed does not demonstrate that the officers were
   unaware of the objects of their search. Thus, Hongo’s argument as to the
   officers also fails.
           Where, as here, probable cause existed, “the affidavit provided
   specific information of the objects of the search, [an] executing officer was
   the affiant, the additional officers making the search knew what was to be
   searched for,” and the warrant referenced the affidavit, “the officer[s’] good
   faith reliance upon the warrant was objectively reasonable.” Beaumont, 972
   F.2d at 562. Hongo has not shown that the good faith exception does not
   apply. See Jarman, 847 F.3d at 264. Accordingly, the district court’s denial
   of his motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.

                                         4