Court Opinion

ID: 9662420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:08:33.56329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:02.096404
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51070        Document: 00516869885             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/23/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-51070
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 23, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Avery Andress Mason,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:22-CR-66-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Defendant-Appellant Avery Andress Mason pleaded guilty to
   possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and
   was sentenced to 70 months in prison. Mason appeals the district court’s
   denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a
   search warrant at his home.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51070      Document: 00516869885           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/23/2023

                                     No. 22-51070

          “When examining a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress,
   we review question of law de novo and factual findings for clear error, viewing
   the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” United States
   v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767, 779 (5th Cir. 2019). In evaluating whether the police
   conducted a constitutionally permissible search, “[f]irst we determine
   whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule . . . applies.” United
   States v. Payne, 341 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Leon,
   468 U.S. 897 (1984). If one or more of the following circumstances is present,
   the good-faith exception cannot apply:
          (1) If the issuing magistrate/judge was misled by information in an
          affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known except
          for reckless disregard of the truth; (2) where the issuing
          magistrate/judge wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) where
          the warrant is based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable
          cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;
          and (4) where the warrant is so facially deficient in failing to
          particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized that
          the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.
   Id. (quoting United States v. Webster, 960 F.2d 1301, 1307 n.4 (5th Cir. 1992)).
   If this exception applies, “we need not reach the question of probable cause
   for the warrant unless it presents a novel question of law, resolution of which
   is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and
   magistrates.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
          Mason contends that the police officers’ reliance on the warrant falls
   under the third of those circumstances and was therefore objectively
   unreasonable. Mason asserts that the affidavit in support of the warrant was
   deficient because it contains untimely evidence in the form of undated
   Instagram posts. Mason also contends that the affidavit fails to demonstrate
   the presence of guns in Mason’s home. The government counters that the
   “affidavit and accompanying exhibits supplied sufficient facts showing

                                          2
Case: 22-51070      Document: 00516869885           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/23/2023

                                     No. 22-51070

   Mason was unlawfully possessing firearms and that those firearms could be
   found in his home” and was “therefore not ‘bare bones.’” The government
   alternatively states that the state judge had a substantial basis for finding the
   existence of probable cause.
          In light of all of the evidence, we conclude that the good-faith
   exception applies. We therefore need not reach the question of probable
   cause. The officers’ belief that Mason was contemporaneously in possession
   of illegal firearms was objectively reasonable in light of the number and timing
   of the Instagram postings, the appearance in one photo of a new tattoo on
   Mason’s face, and the affiant’s conclusion that the guns were the type that
   gun owners would likely keep and not sell or transfer. Regarding location, the
   officers’ belief that guns would be located inside of Mason’s home was also
   objectively reasonable, given that the substantial corroborating evidence
   confirms that the location depicted in several photos was Mason’s residence.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3