Court Opinion

ID: 2964340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:12.552272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:54.526320
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1910

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   JUAN ZAYAS-DIAZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Paul J. Garrity for appellant.
             _______________
             Terry L. Ollila, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Paul
             _______________                                              ____
        M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        _________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                  September 9, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    CYR, Circuit  Judge.   Juan Zayas-Diaz  ("Zayas") chal-
                    CYR, Circuit  Judge.
                         ______________

          lenges  two  pivotal  rulings  underlying  the  district  court's

          refusal to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a  warrant alleg-

          edly based on  information that  failed to connect  Zayas to  the

          search premises within a reasonably recent time frame.  The court

          first determined,  on the  merits, that the  affidavit supporting

          the warrant application  contained adequate reliable  information

          to connect Zayas to the  search premises in the past.   Next, the

          court bypassed the  merits of  the staleness claim  and held  the

          exclusionary rule inapplicable on the ground that the search  had

          been  conducted  in  "objectively  reasonable"  reliance  on  the

          warrant.    See  United States  v.  Leon,  468  U.S. 897  (1984).
                      ___  _____________      ____

          Finding no error, we now affirm the district court judgment. 

                                          I
                                          I

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

          A.   The Graffam Affidavit
          A.   The Graffam Affidavit
               _____________________

                    On  March 8, 1994, a  warrant was obtained  to search a

          single-family  residence in  Bedford, New  Hampshire, based  on a

          nineteen-page affidavit  by Special  Agent Gerald Graffam  of the

          United States Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), purporting

          to establish probable cause to believe that Zayas then or recent-

          ly resided at 16 Holbrook Road and used it as an operational base

          for cocaine trafficking.1   The warrant application sought autho-

          rization to search for various drug-related documents and curren-
                              
          ____________________

               1The criminal investigation was conducted by federal, state,
          and local law  enforcement authorities, to whom we  refer collec-
          tively as "the authorities." 

                                          2

          cy evidencing the suspected cocaine trafficking activity.   

               1.   The Cocaine Trafficking 
               1.   The Cocaine Trafficking
                    _______________________

                    The Graffam affidavit  included information  purporting

          to establish that Zayas was supplying cocaine for distribution at

          various  establishments  in  nearby  Manchester,  New  Hampshire,

          including the Oasis Social  Club.  Based on information  provided

          by a "reliable" confidential  informant ("first CI"), the affida-

          vit related that Marcello  Sosa had been arrested on  January 26,

          1994, for selling cocaine at the Oasis Social Club.2   An arrest-

          ing officer advised that  he had noticed an individual,  known to

          him as "Juan Rosario" alias "Nelson Martell," at the Oasis Social

          Club during Sosa's arrest.   The first  CI confirmed that he  too

          had seen  Sosa and a  person known to him  as "Juan" meet  at the

          club, not  only at the time  of Sosa's arrest but  on prior occa-

          sions.   Sosa himself admitted  that a man  named "Juan," who was

          present  when Sosa was arrested,  had supplied the  six ounces of

          cocaine seized from Sosa's residence shortly after the arrest.  

                    A subsequent documentation and record check disclosed a

          series of  roughly compatible descriptions  for "Nelson  Martell"

          (height 5'6-9"; weight 130-160 pounds;  hair black or brown; eyes

          brown; glasses;  left-arm tatoo;  social security number  001-64-

          1999; birth date  either May 4,  1961 or  August 16, 1954);  home

          address 275 Lake Avenue, Manchester; license suspension for drunk

          driving in 1991; New  Hampshire conviction and suspended sentence

                              
          ____________________

               2For ease  in reference,  we assume all  confidential infor-
          mants were male. 

                                          3

          for  heroin trafficking in 1992;  and a December  1992 arrest and

          pending  prosecution  for  cocaine  trafficking  in  Connecticut,

          during which  arrest Zayas attempted  to discard  cocaine over  a

          highway embankment; and other aliases, including "Juan Gonzalez."

                    On February  24, 1994,  twelve days before  the search,

          the   Manchester  police  interviewed  a  confidential  informant

          ("second  CI").  The second CI, who had "provided reliable infor-

          mation to law  enforcement in the  past," advised that he  knew a

          person  named  "Juan," surname  believed  to  be "Esquevar,"  who

          "currently  controls" cocaine distribution  at various Manchester

          business establishments, including the Oasis Social Club, and who

          delivered cocaine daily  to his "workers,"  including Sosa.   The

          second CI  described "Juan"  (Cuban, dark-skinned, height  5'10",

          weight 160 pounds, black hair, brown eyes, glasses), and told the

          authorities  that he was "aware" that "Juan" had been arrested in

          Connecticut  on a cocaine trafficking charge, and that "Juan" had

          attempted to  discard two  kilos of  cocaine at the  time of  the

          arrest by throwing it over a highway embankment.  

               2.   Zayas and 16 Holbrook Road
               2.   Zayas and 16 Holbrook Road
                    __________________________

                    Although the documentation check revealed a listed home

          address  for "Nelson Martell" (i.e., Zayas) at 275 Lake Avenue in

          Manchester, the Graffam affidavit attested to facts purporting to

          show that Zayas currently or recently resided at 16 Holbrook Road

          in  Bedford,  New Hampshire.    Following his  arrest,  Sosa told

          police that "Juan,"  his supplier, "lived" in Bedford,  New Hamp-

                                          4

          shire. Moreover, on  February 24,  1994, the second  CI also  had

          advised the authorities that Juan  "lives" in Bedford and "deals"

          large amounts of cocaine.  The  second CI added that he had "been

          to  Juan's Bedford residence on  several occasions and seen large

          quantities  of cocaine  and  cash present,"  and that  "[S]panish

          males,"  in two  or  more automobiles  bearing  New York  license

          plates, arrived "every Tuesday" at the Bedford residence.  

                    On February  24, 1994, after his  interview, the second

          CI led the  authorities to the  Bedford premises at which  he had

          visited "Juan."   Presumably to avoid  detection, the authorities

          did not enter  upon the  premises.   Instead, the  second CI  de-

          scribed specific  features of the  residential grounds, including

          (1)  a  long  driveway  lined with  three  birdhouses  containing

          concealed video cameras; (2)  a shack-like residence with peeling

          brown  paint; (3) five dogs outside the house, and an unspecified

          number of dog houses;  and (4) four or five  abandoned/junk vehi-

          cles, including a  motorcycle.  The second CI  described interior

          features of the  residence itself, including (1)  a video monitor

          connected to  the "birdhouse" cameras; (2)  furnishings, "in good

          condition" compared  with the  shabby exterior of  the residence;

          and  (3) in  the  basement, a  restaurant-style refrigerator  for

          storing cocaine.   Subsequent aerial surveillance  at 16 Holbrook

          Road  revealed a  long driveway,  a brown  single-family dwelling

          with  detached garage and shed, and "at least three (3) doghouses

          and two (2) abandoned vehicles."

                    3.   The "Residence" at 16 Holbrook Road
                    3.   The "Residence" at 16 Holbrook Road
                         ___________________________________
                         and the Zayas-Koehler "Relationship"
                         and the Zayas-Koehler "Relationship"
                         ___________________________________

                                          5

                    The  Graffam  affidavit   purported  to  establish   16
                    

          Holbrook  Road as  Zayas'  current or  recent  residence or  drug

          operation base, by demonstrating that  codefendant Brenda Koehler

          currently  or recently lived there,  and that she  and Zayas were

          currently  involved  in  a  close relationship.    The  second CI

          advised  the authorities  that "Juan"  lived at 16  Holbrook Road

          "with a girlfriend," described as a  "white female," about thirty

          years old, with brown hair, whose son also resided at 16 Holbrook

          Road and  "attends" Trinity  High School,  where he  "plays foot-

          ball."  An October  1992 police incident report confirmed  that a

          "Kevin Koehler" had sustained an injury while playing football at

          Trinity High School, identified his mother as Brenda Koehler, "16

          Holbrook  Road," telephone  number 624-8730.   A  postal delivery

          check  indicated  that  Kevin  Koehler had  received  mail  at 16

          Holbrook  Road  in 1992.   A  June  1993 traffic  accident report

          reflected 16 Holbrook Road  as Brenda Koehler's home address.   A

          third confidential informant ("third CI")  confirmed that "Juan,"

          who supplied  cocaine to workers at the Oasis Social Club, "had a

          white wife . . . in her thirties."  

                    On  February  10,  1994,  James  McDowell  advised  the

          authorities that he  had leased  a garage at  425 Second  Street,

          Manchester,  to Brenda Koehler, who  was accompanied by a "Nelson

          Martell" at the time she signed the lease.  The Graffam affidavit

          failed to disclose the  date the lease was signed.  McDowell told

          the authorities  that he  "believed Brenda Koehler  was Martell's

          wife,"  and advised that Koehler  gave "16 Holbrook  Road" as her

                                          6

          home address, and 624-8730 as her telephone number.   Thereafter,

          in late  February 1994, a  motor vehicle registration  check dis-

          closed  a  roughly  compatible  physical description  for  Brenda

          Koehler  ("white female,"  thirty-four years  old, height  5' 2",

          brown hair, brown  eyes), and  listed her address  as 481  Beacon

          Street, Manchester. 

               4.   Activity at 16 Holbrook Road
               4.   Activity at 16 Holbrook Road
                    ____________________________

                    In  late February  1994, the  authorities learned  that

          mail  was not  "presently" being  received at  16 Holbrook  Road.

          Moreover,  by this time there  was no longer  a telephone listing

          for 16 Holbrook Road.  The electrical utility listing nonetheless

          continued to reflect that Brenda Koehler was the person responsi-

          ble  for payment.  Moreover,  though the premises  were heated by

          oil,  the  electrical  utility reported  the  following billings:

          October-November 1993 ($565 for 4595 kw hours), November-December

          1993 ($462 for  3679 kw  hours), and  December 1993-January  1994

          ($600.00 for 5024 kw hours).  

               5.   Graffam's Law Enforcement Experience
               5.   Graffam's Law Enforcement Experience
                    ____________________________________

                    Finally, based  on Graffam's twenty-two years  as a DEA

          agent, the supporting affidavit stated that active drug traffick-

          ers commonly:  (1) retain for ready reference, in their residenc-

          es  for  extended  periods,  records relating  to  their  ongoing

          trafficking  activities;  (2)  assume  fictitious  names  or  use

          nominees to avoid detection;  (3) establish surveillance at their

          operational  bases to  detect law  enforcement activity;  and (4)

          attempt  to avoid disclosure  or discovery of  their actual resi-

                                          7

          dences  and operational  bases by  suspending mail  and telephone

          service.

          B.   The District Court Proceedings
          B.   The District Court Proceedings
               ______________________________

                    The search conducted pursuant to the challenged warrant

          disclosed  ammunition,  cocaine  residue,   cocaine  distributing

          paraphernalia, substantial cash, and numerous documents detailing

          Zayas' ongoing  cocaine trafficking  activities.  In  due course,

          Zayas and ten associates,  including Brenda Koehler, were charged

          with conspiracy  to possess  cocaine with intent  to distribute.3

          See  21  U.S.C.     841(a)(1), 846.    Zayas and  Koehler jointly
          ___

          sought  to suppress  the  evidence seized  at  16 Holbrook  Road,

          claiming among  other things that  the Graffam affidavit  did not

          reflect "16 Holbrook Road" as the address at which "Juan" resided

          or conducted drug operations and that much crucial information in

          the  affidavit  was  irredeemably  "stale."   Zayas  stressed  in

          particular that the Graffam  affidavit, which identified February

          24,  1994, as the date upon which the authorities interviewed the

          second  CI, nonetheless failed to  state when the  second CI last

          visited with "Juan" at 16 Holbrook Road.

                    The district court denied  the motion to suppress after

          an evidentiary hearing.  United States v. Zayas-Diaz,  No. 94-30-
                                   _____________    __________

                              
          ____________________

               3The  nine  other  defendants  entered guilty  pleas.    The
          government does not now contend  that Zayas lacked an objectively
          reasonable expectation of privacy in the 16 Holbrook Road premis-
          es at  the time  the  search was  conducted.   See, e.g.,  United
                                                         ___  ____   ______
          States  v. Bouffard, 917 F.2d 673, 675-76 (1st Cir. 1990); United
          ______     ________                                        ______
          States v. Soule, 908 F.2d 1032, 1034 (1st Cir. 1990). 
          ______    _____

                                          8

          01-B (D.N.H. Dec.  22, 1994).4  First, it  ruled that the Graffam

          affidavit  contained sufficient  information to  provide probable

          cause  to believe  that  Zayas either  resided or  conducted drug

          operations at 16 Holbrook Road.  Second, without deciding whether

          the matters  affirmed in the Graffam  affidavit were sufficiently

          contemporaneous to  afford a  substantial basis for  the probable

          cause  determination, the  district court  held  the exclusionary

          rule inapplicable based on  the so-called "good faith" exception.

          See Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 (holding that the exclusionary  rule is
          ___ ____

          not implicated  unless, inter alia, the  supporting affidavit was
                                  _____ ____

          "so  lacking in indicia of  probable cause as  to render official

          belief in its existence entirely unreasonable").

                                          II
                                          II

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

                    On  appeal,  Zayas  resurfaces  two  claims  previously

          presented  to  the district  court:   (1)  the  Graffam affidavit

          contained insufficient information to provide a substantial basis

          for finding  it probable  that evidence  relating to  Zayas' drug

          trafficking activities would  be found at  16 Holbrook Road;  and

          (2) the Leon "good  faith" exception to the exclusionary  rule is
                  ____

          unavailing  because any  reasonably well-trained  law enforcement

          officer would know  that the "stale"  information in the  Graffam

          affidavit was not adequate to establish probable cause to believe

          that 16 Holbrook Road  was either Zayas' recent or  current resi-
                              
          ____________________

               4Following a five-day jury trial, Zayas was found  guilty on
          the conspiracy charge.  The district court later sentenced him to
          360 months.

                                          9

          dence or drug  operation site; and  the more current  information

          neither cured the staleness nor provided an independent basis for

          a "probable cause" determination.  

          A.   The "Probable Cause" Connection
          A.   The "Probable Cause" Connection
               _______________________________
               Between Zayas and 16 Holbrook Road 
               Between Zayas and 16 Holbrook Road 
               __________________________________

                    The  district court  held  that  the Graffam  affidavit

          afforded probable cause to believe that Zayas resided or conduct-

          ed drug operations at 16 Holbrook Road in the past.  It found the

          second CI's  identification of  16 Holbrook  Road to be  reliable

          because the  authorities  were "able  to corroborate  so much  of

          [his]  statement both as to  innocent details and  as to incrimi-

          nating matters,  such as Zayas-Diaz's involvement  in the cocaine

          transaction."  See  Tr. of Suppression Hearing at  107-08 (citing
                         ___

          United States v. Taylor, 985 F.2d  3, 6 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
          _____________    ______                             _____ ______

          508 U.S. 944 (1993)).  

               1.   The "Probable Cause" Standard
               1.   The "Probable Cause" Standard
                    _____________________________

                    For evidence to  avert suppression, see  generally Mapp
                                                        ___  _________ ____

          v. Ohio, 367  U.S. 643 (1961),  normally the warrant  application
             ____

          must  demonstrate probable  cause  to believe  that a  particular

          person has committed a  crime    "the commission element"     and
                                                                        ___

          that  enumerated  evidence relevant  to the  probable criminality

          likely is  located at the  place to  be searched     "the `nexus'

          element".   United  States v.  Fuccillo, 808  F.2d 173,  175 (1st
                      ______________     ________

          Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 905 (1987).  The issuing magistrate
                 _____ ______

          ordinarily  considers  only the  facts  set  forth in  supporting

          affidavits  accompanying the  warrant  application.   See,  e.g.,
                                                                ___   ____

          Whiteley v. Warden,  Wyo. State Penitentiary,  401 U.S. 560,  565
          ________    ________________________________

                                          10

          (1971); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 109 (1964); United States
                  _______    _____                            _____________

          v.  Klein, 565  F.2d 183,  186 n.4  (1st Cir.  1977).   Under the
              _____

          "probable cause" standard,  the "totality  of the  circumstances"

          disclosed in  the supporting affidavits must  demonstrate "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
                                     ________    _____

          (1983)  (emphasis added);  United States  v. Bucuvalas,  970 F.2d
                                     _____________     _________

          937, 940 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 959 (1993).    
                                    _____ ______

                    Among  others, the  factors  that may  contribute to  a

          "probable  cause"  determination  include  whether  an  affidavit

          supports  the probable  "`veracity'  or `basis  of knowledge'  of

          persons  supplying hearsay  information," id.;  whether informant
                                                    ___

          statements are self-authenticating,  see, e.g., Taylor,  985 F.2d
                                               ___  ____  ______

          at  5 (noting  that  affidavit may  support informant's  veracity

          "through the  very specificity and  detail with which  it relates

          the  informant's  first-hand  description  of  the  place  to  be

          searched"); whether  some or  all the informant's  factual state-

          ments  were  corroborated  wherever  reasonable  and  practicable

          (e.g., through police surveillance);5 and whether a  law-enforce-

          ment affiant  included a professional assessment  of the probable

          significance  of the  facts  related by  the informant,  based on

                              
          ____________________

               5See Gates, 462 U.S. at 244; Soule, 908 F.2d at 1039 (noting
                ___ _____                   _____
          that police contemporaneously corroborated "the material elements
          of the [informant's] tip");  see also Alabama v. White,  496 U.S.
                                       ___ ____ _______    _____
          325,  331 (1990)  ("[Because  an informant  is  right about  some
          things,  he  is more  probably right  about others.");  Draper v.
                                                                  ______
          United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313 (1959);  United States v. Lalor,
          _____________                             _____________    _____
          996  F.2d 1578,  1581  (4th Cir.),  cert.  denied, 510  U.S.  983
                                              _____  ______
          (1993).

                                          11

          experience or expertise, see United States v. Hoffman, 832  F.2d,
                                   ___ _____________    _______

          1299, 1306 (1st Cir.  1987) (noting that law-enforcement affiants

          were  "specially trained in the ways of drug trafficking").  None

          of these factors is indispensable; thus, stronger evidence on one

          or  more factors may compensate for a weaker or deficient showing

          on another.  See Taylor, 985 F.2d at 5; United States v. Nocella,
                       ___ ______                 _____________    _______

          849  F.2d 33,  37 (1st Cir.  1988); United States  v. Ciampa, 793
                                              _____________     ______

          F.2d 19, 22 (1986).           Reviewing  courts,  including  both

          the district court and the court of appeals, must accord "consid-

          erable deference"  to the "probable cause"  determination made by

          the issuing magistrate.   See Taylor, 985 F.2d at 5  ("[T]he duty
                                    ___ ______

          of  the reviewing court is  simply to ensure  that the magistrate

          had  a `substantial basis for  . . .  conclud[ing]' that probable

          cause existed.").  The reviewing court must  examine "the affida-

          vit  in  `a practical,  "common sense"  fashion,  and [  ] accord

          considerable  deference to  reasonable  inferences  the  [issuing

          magistrate] may have drawn  from the attested facts.'" Bucuvalas,
                                                                 _________

          970  F.2d at 940 (citations omitted).  Moreover, given the strong

          preference for warrants under our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,

          normally a reviewing court will  defer to an issuing magistrate's

          "probable cause"  determination in  a doubtful or  marginal case.

          See  United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 (1965); United
          ___  _____________    _________                            ______

          States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 823 (5th Cir. 1988). 
          ______    _____

               2.   The Connection Between Zayas and 16 Holbrook Road6
               2.   The Connection Between Zayas and 16 Holbrook Road
                    _________________________________________________
                              
          ____________________

               6We review  the district  court's factual findings  (if any)
          only for clear error, but we review de novo its ultimate determi-
                                              __ ____
          nation that a  given set of  facts constituted "probable  cause."

                                          12

                    Zayas argues that the Graffam affidavit is insufficient

          because  (i) it did not  explicitly identify 16  Holbrook Road as
                                   __________

          the address at which the second CI visited Zayas on several prior

          occasions and saw large amounts of cocaine and cash, and (ii) the

          description  of the premises given  by the second  CI differed in

          some respects  from the  information disclosed in  the subsequent

          aerial surveillance.   See supra Section  I.A.2.  We  note at the
                                 ___ _____

          outset that  this argument  ignores the incriminating  network of
                                                  _____________  _______ __

          circumstantial evidence pointing unmistakably to 16 Holbrook Road
          ______________ ________

          as the Bedford residence at which the second CI had visited Zayas

          in  the  past, see  supra Section  I.A.   Moreover,  its implicit
                         ___  _____

          presumption that  the second CI  probably led the  authorities to

          premises  other than  those  at which  he  had visited  Zayas  is

          untenable  given Graffam's  attestation  that the  second CI  had

          demonstrated his  reliability in the  past. See United  States v.
                                                      ___ ______________

          Schaefer, 87 F.3d  562, 566 1st Cir. 1996).7   Finally, the argu-
          ________
                              
          ____________________

          See  United States v.  Schaefer, 87 F.3d  562, 565 n.2  (1st Cir.
          ___  _____________     ________
          1996) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996)).
                        _______    _____________

               7In addition, the second  CI related prior criminal activity
          by Zayas (e.g., dumping cocaine over an embankment in 1992 at the
          time he was arrested in Connecticut) and descriptions of exterior
          and  interior features at 16 Holbrook Road.  See Taylor, 985 F.2d
                                                       ___ ______
          at  6 (noting that a CI's overall reliability may be demonstrated
          by  the "very specificity  and detail" of  descriptions of search
          premises, or  of defendant's prior criminal  activity or record).
          Moreover, the authorities here independently corroborated many of
          these details through a documentation and record check and aerial
          surveillance.   See Soule, 908  F.2d at 1039  (noting that police
                          ___ _____
          contemporaneously  corroborated  "the  material elements  of  the
          [informant's] tip").  Further, some of the second CI's statements
          were confirmed by the  third CI (e.g., the description  of Zayas'
          wife/girlfriend as a white,  thirty-year-old female    a descrip-
          tion likewise corroborated by  a documentation check on Koehler).
          See Schaefer, 87  F.3d at 566 (holding that consistencies between
          ___ ________

                                          13

          ment aimed at undermining  the corroborative information gathered

          through aerial  surveillance of 16 Holbrook  Road likewise fails,

          since it too presumes that the  second CI either did not know the
                                                                   ____

          location of the premises at which he had visited Zayas on several

          prior occasions  or that  he misrepresented its  physical charac-

          teristics.  See id.  at 567 ("When an informant's  statements and
                      ___ ___

          the events he describes diverge in minor ways, the magistrate may

          reasonably choose  to credit  the statements and  disregard petty

          inconsistencies.").  

                    Our de  novo assessment of the totality  of the circum-
                        __  ____

          stances conveyed in  the Graffam affidavit persuades  us that the

          issuing  magistrate had  a  substantial basis  for crediting  the

          second CI's overall reliability, and by extension his identifica-

          tion  of 16 Holbrook Road as the  locus of his prior visits.  The

          demonstrated  reliability of  the  second CI,  together with  the

          substantial  similarity in  the physical  characteristics of  the

          premises, as described  by the  second CI and  buttressed by  the

          aerial  surveillance  of  16  Holbrook  Road,  provided  adequate

          support  for the  issuing  magistrate's  practical,  common-sense

          "probable  cause"  determination  that  the  Zayas residence/drug

          operation base previously visited by the second CI was located at

          16 Holbrook Road in Bedford, New Hampshire.   See Gates, 462 U.S.
                                                        ___ _____

          at 238.

          B.   The Staleness Claim 
          B.   The Staleness Claim 
               ___________________
                              
          ____________________

          informants'  reports  may  serve   to  validate  both  accounts).
                                                           ____
          "[Because an informant  is right  about some things,  he is  more
          probably right about others."  Alabama, 496 U.S. at 331.
                                         _______

                                          14

               1.   Leon Bypass
               1.   Leon Bypass
                    ___________

                    The district court elected to  bypass the merits of the

          staleness claim  that the Graffam affidavit  afforded no substan-

          tial  basis  for a  "probable  cause" finding  that  Zayas either

          resided or  conducted drug operations within  a reasonably recent

          time  frame at 16 Holbrook Road.  See Zayas-Diaz, No. 94-30-01-B,
                                            ___ __________

          slip op. at  7.  Leon  allows the trial  court, in its  "informed
                           ____

          discretion,"  to  bypass  the  customary  "merits"  inquiry  into

          whether  there existed  a  "substantial basis"  for the  probable

          cause determination  made by  the issuing magistrate,  and simply

          decide instead whether  the challenged search in  all events came

          within  the  "good faith"  exception  to  the exclusionary  rule.

          Leon, 468 U.S. at 925; see Gates, 462 U.S. at  264-65 (White, J.,
          ____                   ___ _____

          concurring);  see, e.g., United  States v. Manning,  79 F.3d 212,
                        ___  ____  ______________    _______

          221 (1st Cir. 1996),  petition for cert. filed, ___  U.S.L.W. ___
                                ________ ___ _____ _____

          (U.S.  June 19,  1996)  (No. 95-9375);  Craig,  861 F.2d  at  820
                                                  _____

          (discussing  principles of  "judicial restraint"  and "precedent"

          affecting Leon bypass determinations).8  
                    ____
                              
          ____________________

               8Leon  identifies  important prudential  considerations that
                ____
          inform the  discretionary  bypass  decision  at  the  suppression
          stage. 

                    If  the  resolution  of  a  particular Fourth
                    Amendment  question  is  necessary  to  guide
                    future action by law enforcement officers and
                    magistrates,  nothing will  prevent reviewing
                    courts  from  deciding  that question  before
                    turning to the good-faith issue.   Indeed, it
                    frequently  will  be  difficult to  determine
                    whether the officers acted reasonably without
                    resolving the  Fourth Amendment issue.   Even
                    if the  Fourth Amendment question  is not one
                    of broad import,  reviewing courts could  de-

                                          15

               2.   The Leon Exception
               2.   The Leon Exception
                    __________________

                    The  instant Leon  "good faith"  analysis fundamentally
                                 ____

          depends  upon the  "probable  cause" concept  itself.   See supra
                                                                  ___ _____

          Section  II.A.1. The  "commission"  and "nexus"  elements in  the

          "probable cause" analysis each  include a temporal component. The

          issuing  magistrate  must  not  only consider  the  accuracy  and

          reliability of  the historical  facts related in  the affidavits,

          but must  determine,  inter alia,  whether  the totality  of  the
                                _____ ____

          circumstances  reasonably inferable  from  the affidavits  demon-

          strates  a  "fair  probability"  that evidence  material  to  the

          "commission"  of the  probable  crime will  be  disclosed at  the

          search premises at about the time the search warrant would issue,

          rather than at some remote time.  See Sgro v.  United States, 287
                                            ___ ____     _____________

          U.S. 206, 210 (1932); United States v. Wilkinson, 926 F.2d 22, 27
                                _____________    _________

          (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211 (1991).  
                      _____ ______

                    As the more serious  challenge to the Graffam affidavit

          focuses  on  its  allegedly  "stale" information,  thus  arguably

          describing events that occurred at  some remote earlier time, see
                                                                        ___

                              
          ____________________

                    cide  in  particular  cases that  magistrates
                    under their supervision  need to be  informed
                    of their errors and so evaluate the officers'
                    good  faith only  after finding  a violation.
                    In  other  circumstances, those  courts could
                    reject suppression motions  posing no  impor-
                    tant  Fourth  Amendment questions  by turning
                    immediately   to   a  consideration   of  the
                    officers' good  faith.  We have  no reason to
                    believe that our  Fourth Amendment  jurispru-
                    dence would suffer . . . .

          Leon,  468 U.S. at 925.   As neither  party challenges the bypass
          ____
          decision itself, we turn directly to the Leon exception. 
                                                   ____

                                          16

          Bucuvalas, 970 F.2d at 940, we devote particular attention to the
          _________

          contemporaneity of the attested  facts relating to Zayas' connec-

          tion with  16  Holbrook Road  at  or about  the time  the  search

          warrant  issued on  March 4,  1994.   As already  noted, however,

          ultimately the  "probable cause" analysis takes  into account the

          totality of  the  circumstances  reasonably  inferable  from  the

          reliable facts  set forth in the Graffam affidavit.  Thus, a weak

          showing on a particular  factor may be offset by  more compelling

          evidence  on  another relevant  factor  in  the "probable  cause"

          analysis.  See supra Section II.A.1.  
                     ___ _____

                    Once the  trial court elects  to bypass the  merits and

          proceed with  the Leon  analysis, moreover, the  "probable cause"
                            ____

          focus  shifts.  Since no deterrent purpose is served by sanction-

          ing "objectively  reasonable" law enforcement conduct, see United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States  v. Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1993) (citation
          ______     ____________

          omitted), the "extreme sanction"  of exclusion is inapplicable to

          evidence seized  pursuant  to a  search  warrant obtained  in  an

          "objectively  reasonable" manner from  a neutral magistrate, even

          assuming the warrant or supporting affidavits were defective, see
                                                                        ___

          Leon, 468 U.S. at 921, 926. 
          ____

                    The Supreme  Court employed  four exemplars in  Leon to
                                                                    ____

          outline the  ongoing role  it envisioned for  "exclusionary rule"

          deterrence in circumstances where  evidence is seized pursuant to

          a search warrant:   (1) the magistrate is "misled  by information

          in  an affidavit that  the affiant knew  was false  or would have

          known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth";

                                          17

          (2) the magistrate "wholly  abandon[s] his [detached and neutral]

          judicial role"; (3) the warrant  is "so facially deficient [e.g.,

          failing to  list, with sufficient particularity,  the evidence to

          be  seized] . . .  that the executing  officers cannot reasonably

          presume it to  be valid";  or (4) the  supporting affidavits  are

          "`so lacking in indicia  of probable cause as to  render official

          belief  in  its existence  entirely  unreasonable.'"  Id. at  923
                                                                ___

          (citing Brown v.  Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-11  (1975) (Powell,
                  _____     ________

          J., concurring  in part)).   The instant Leon  dispute implicates
                                                   ____

          only the latter category.9  

                    With  respect to the  critical temporal  "nexus," Zayas

          contends  that  the  Graffam  affidavit  contained  only  "stale"

          information that he  resided or conducted  drug operations at  16

          Holbrook Road, since the second  CI did not specify when he  last

          visited  Zayas there.  Absent  other reliable evidence  of a dis-

          cernible temporal  nexus, says Zayas, it  was "entirely unreason-

          able" for the executing officers to rely on the Graffam affidavit

          as an adequate  basis for the required  "probable cause" showing.

          See id.  This challenge likewise impermissibly depends, in  part,
          ___ ___

                              
          ____________________

               9Zayas  does not claim, for example, that the second CI told
          the authorities the  date he  last visited Zayas  at 16  Holbrook
          Road, nor  that such  information was deliberately  or recklessly
          omitted from the Graffam  affidavit.  See, e.g., Craig,  861 F.2d
                                                ___  ____  _____
          at 822 (noting that defendant did not contend that the Leon "good
                                                                 ____
          faith"  exception  was unavailable  because  the affiant  omitted
          information from  the affidavit  to deceive the  issuing judicial
          officer).  Of course,  had Zayas meant to impugn  police motives,
          the appropriate course would have been  to request an evidentiary
          hearing  under  Franks.   See Franks  v.  Delaware, 438  U.S. 154
                          ______    ___ ______      ________
          (1978);  United  States v.  Williams, 897 F.2d  1034, 1038  (10th
                   ______________     ________
          Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 937 (1991).  
                      _____ ______

                                          18

          upon  the implicit  assumption  that the  second CI  misdescribed

          exterior features  of the premises,  but see supra  Section II.A,
                                               ___ ___ _____

          despite  the  substantially  contemporaneous aerial  surveillance
                        _____________  _______________

          which  essentially  corroborated  the  description  given by  the

          second CI, and notwithstanding  Graffam's vouching for the second

          CI's reliability.  

                    The lone respect  in which this  aspect of Zayas'  Leon
                                                                       ____

          challenge differs  from that  discussed above, see  supra Section
                                                         ___  _____

          II.A,  is its focus on Graffam's undeniable failure to ascribe in

          the affidavit an approximate  date to the second CI's  last visit

          with Zayas at 16 Holbrook Road.  At this juncture it is important

          to note  that the government must  establish "objectively reason-

          able"  reliance on a defective warrant, see, e.g., Leon, 468 U.S.
                                                  ___  ____  ____

          at 924, based on all the circumstances, id. at 923; Ricciardelli,
                                                  ___         ____________

          998  F.2d at  15.   Moreover, though  the "clear  error" standard

          governs our review  of any  findings of fact,  see, e.g.,  United
                                                         ___  ____   ______

          States  v. Jackson,  67 F.3d  1359, 1366  (8th Cir.  1995), cert.
          ______     _______                                          _____

          denied,  116 S. Ct. 1684 (1996), the ultimate determination as to
          ______

          whether the  executing officers acted  in objectively  reasonable

          reliance  on a  defective warrant  is reviewed  de novo.   United
                                                          __ ____    ______

          States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 28 (1st Cir. 1996).10  
          ______    ________
                              
          ____________________

               10In  our own case, the district court relied on the follow-
          ing four grounds.   First, in describing his "several"  visits to
          16 Holbrook Road,  the second  CI stated that  Juan "lives,"  and
          "deals" drugs,  in Bedford.  Zayas-Diaz, No. 94-30-01-B, slip op.
                                       __________
          at 8.   Next, the  follow-up aerial surveillance  of 16  Holbrook
          Road "substantially" corroborated the second CI's  description of
          the  residential  grounds  at 16  Holbrook  Road.    Id.   Third,
                                                               ___
          Marcello Sosa admitted that his cocaine supplier, "Juan," "lived"
          in Bedford.   Id. at 8-9.  Finally, the statements James McDowell
                        ___

                                          19

                    Were the critical time  element presently under discus-

          sion  otherwise  indiscernible within  the  four  corners of  the

          Graffam affidavit, see Bucuvalas, 970 F.2d at 940, the government
                             ___ _________

          might well  have been unable  to save the  evidence seized at  16

          Holbrook Road.  See, e.g., United States v. Huggins, 733 F. Supp.
                          ___  ____  _____________    _______

          445,  449 (D.D.C.  1990)  (Leon doctrine  unavailing where  court
                                     ____

          could not infer, from information within "the four corners of the

          affidavit . .  . the time during which the  criminal activity was

          observed") (citing  Herrington v.  State, 697 S.W.2d  899, 900-01
                              __________     _____

          (Ark.  1985)).  Ostensibly, the second CI's statement that he had

          visited with Zayas at 16 Holbrook Road  on several occasions is a

          prime example  of "undated  stale" information, which  raises the

          specter that "officers  with information of  questionable recency

          [may]  escape embarrassment  by simply  omitting averments  as to

          time."   Rosencranz v. United States, 356 F.2d 310, 316 (1st Cir.
                   __________    _____________

          1966).   Moreover,  as the  government all  but conceded  at oral

          argument,  it  would  seem  that a  reasonably  well-trained  law

          enforcement officer should be familiar with the fundamental legal

          principle  that both  the  "commission" and  "nexus" elements  of

          "probable cause"  include an  essential temporal component.   See
                                                                        ___

          Leon, 468 U.S. at 920, n.20.  Without necessarily endorsing their
          ____

          sufficiency,  we  acknowledge that  the  circumstantial consider-

          ations relied upon by the district court, see supra note 10,  are
                                                    ___ _____
                              
          ____________________

          made to the authorities in February 1994    that "Nelson Martell"
          (Zayas) had been with Brenda Koehler when she leased the McDowell
          garage,  and the  two  "appear[ed] to  be  husband and  wife"    
          provided  some further  support for  a reasonable  inference that
          Koehler and Zayas lived together at 16Holbrook Road.  Id. at 9.  
                                                                ___

                                          20

          relevant to the  required nexus  between the date  the second  CI

          visited with Zayas at  16 Holbrook Road and  the date the  search

          warrant issued. 

                    Fortunately  for  the government,  other circumstantial

          indicia  buttress  the  required  temporal link.    The  analysis

          suggested  by  Zayas disregards  salient  inferences which  well-

          trained,  objectively reasonable  law enforcement  officers might

          draw  from the  totality of  the  circumstances disclosed  in the

          Graffam affidavit.  See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 (requiring practi-
                              ___ _____

          cal, common-sense "probable cause" assessments  by issuing magis-

          trates and  reviewing courts).   Thus,  Zayas adroitly  skews the

          focus of  the Leon debate,  from whether  a well-trained  officer
                        ____

          reasonably could have relied  upon a search warrant based  on the

          evidence described in the  Graffam affidavit as well as  all fair
                                                       __ ____ __  ___ ____

          inferences  therefrom, to  whether a  well-trained officer  would
          __________  _________

          have known that supporting affidavits whenever practicable should

          provide at least approximate dates for pivotal events such as the

          second CI's last visit with Zayas at 16 Holbrook Road.  

                    While Zayas would win  the latter debate hands-down, he

          loses  the former  under Leon's "objectively  reasonable officer"
                                   ____

          test  because the  Graffam affidavit  describes a  collocation of

          circumstances,   as  well  as  expert  law-enforcement  insights,

          adequate to enable the recency of the critical last visit by  the

          second CI to be fairly inferred.  See United States v. Jewell, 60
                                            ___ _____________    ______

          F.3d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing "totality of the circumstanc-

          es"  test, and rejecting  defendant's invitation to  "engage in a

                                          21

          piecemeal examination of the affidavit, and [to] base our  review

          of the clerk-magistrate's actions on  `"bits and pieces of infor-

          mation in  isolation"'") (citation omitted).   First, the Graffam

          affidavit  afforded ample basis for  finding the second CI trust-

          worthy.11    See supra  Section II.A.  Second,  the link  with 16
                       ___ _____

          Holbrook  Road, whether  as  Zayas' residence  or drug  operation

          site, plainly satisfied the "probable cause"  standard.  All that

          remained  was  the temporal  component  of  the "commission"  and

          "nexus" elements.  See supra pps. 13-15.  
                             ___ _____

                              
          ____________________

               11The  affidavit  would  enable  a  reasonably  well-trained
          police  officer to  conclude that  the second  CI was  a reliable
          informant,  based both  on  Graffam's vouching  and  on the  very
          detail  of the  second  CI's information  about "Nelson  Martell"
          [Zayas],  particularly  the  earlier  cocaine-related  arrest  in
          Connecticut,  see supra note  7, which Graffam  verified with the
                        ___ _____
          Connecticut police before the affidavit was submitted.

                                          22

                    As to  the "commission" element, the  ongoing nature of

          Zayas' cocaine trafficking activities  in the Manchester area was

          amply demonstrated in the  supporting affidavit: first, by Sosa's

          admission  that  Zayas had  supplied  the six  ounces  of cocaine

          seized from Sosa's  residence on  January 26, 1994,  the date  of

          Sosa's  arrest; and by the second CI, who informed the Manchester

          police  on February 24, 1994    twelve days before the challenged

          search    that Zayas,  alias "Juan," "currently controls" cocaine

          distribution  at  various  Manchester   business  establishments,

          including the Oasis Social Club.  See supra Section I.A.1. 
                                            ___ _____

                    As to the "nexus" element,  the pivotal linkage was the

          second  CI's statement  that  "Juan lives"  in Bedford,  where on

          "several occasions"  the second  CI had  visited "Juan" and  seen

          cocaine and  cash in  substantial quantities.   Though imprecise,

          these  temporal references were related  by the second  CI in the

          present tense, which at the very least would permit an objective-

          ly  reasonable officer  to infer  that the  occurrences described

          were  substantially contemporaneous with  the second  CI's inter-

          view, which in turn took place  within twelve days of the warrant
                _____ __ ____ ____ _____  ______ ______ ____ __ ___ _______

          application.   The  second CI's  description of  various exterior
          ___________

          features of  16 Holbrook  Road, as substantially  corroborated by

          virtually contemporaneous aerial  surveillance, likewise lent  to

          the probability that his last  visit had been relatively  recent,

          rather  than remote in time.  The  few minor discrepancies in the

          second  CI's descriptive  account  were by  no means  necessarily

          attributable  to a substantial time lapse.  See Schaefer, 87 F.3d
                                                      ___ ________

                                          23

          at 567 (noting that  "magistrate may reasonably  choose to . .  .

          disregard  petty  inconsistencies"  in  informants'  statements).

          Finally,  the second CI made statements  that plainly imply regu-

          lar,  ongoing  transactions  at  16  Holbrook  Road,  e.g.,  that

          "[S]panish males"  arrived "every  Tuesday" at the  Bedford resi-
                                      _____

          dence in automobiles bearing New York license plates.

                    Absent   any  indication  or  suggestion  that  Graffam

          purposely withheld  more precise  temporal references  adverse to

          the  warrant  application, see  supra note  9,  it would  be pure
                                     ___  _____

          speculation to credit Zayas' implicit premise that the last visit

          the second CI had with Zayas at  16 Holbrook Road was necessarily

          remote  in time even though  there was probable  cause to believe

          that  Zayas was  still trafficking  cocaine less  than  two weeks

          before the search.  See, e.g., id. at 568 ("[I]t is common ground
                              ___  ____  __

          that drug  conspiracies tend to be  ongoing operations, rendering

          timely [two- or three-year-old]  information that might, in other

          contexts, be regarded as stale."); United States v. Hernandez, 80
                                             ______ ______    _________

          F.3d  1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) ("With respect to drug traffick-

          ing,  probable cause  may  continue  for  several weeks,  if  not

          months, [from] the last reported instance of suspect activity.");

          United States v. Smith, 9 F.3d  1007, 1014 (2d Cir. 1993)  (weeks
          ______ ______    _____

          or months); Rivera v.  United States, 928 F.2d 592, 602  (2d Cir.
                      ______     ______ ______

          1991) (noting that in drug trafficking cases,  information may be

          weeks or months old). Finally, it is one thing to find use of the

          past tense "lived" insufficient  to indicate a current residence,

          as Zayas  urges; quite  another to equate  "lives" with  "lived."

                                          24

          See  supra Section  I.A.2.   It is  one matter  to find  the term
          ___  _____

          "dealt"  inadequate  to  indicate  current  drug  dealing;  quite

          another to equate "deals" with "dealt."  See id. 
                                                   ___ ___

                    To this must be added the weight due Graffam's insights

          into drug  trafficking  modi operandi,  based  on more  than  two
                                  ____ ________

          decades as  a DEA agent.   See supra  Subsections I.A.4  & I.A.5.
                                     ___ _____

          Given Graffam's expertise, it would be "objectively unreasonable"

          to  conclude, as  Zayas simply  presumes,  that mere  stoppage of
                        __  _____ ______  ________

          postal deliveries  and electrical  utility services, or  the use,

          listing, and/or maintenance  of other  residential addresses,  or

          nominee  owners such  as Brenda  Koehler, compelled  an inference

          that Zayas was no longer residing, conducting drug operations, or

          keeping illicit drug-related records, at 16 Holbrook Road.  Thus,

          in no sense  would it  have been objectively  unreasonable for  a

          well-trained police officer to believe there was a fair probabil-

          ity that  these developments were subterfuges  prompted by Sosa's

          recent arrest and  designed to prevent detection, as  the Graffam

          affidavit indicated.  See id.
                                ___ ___

                                         III
                                         III

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION
                                      __________

                    We therefore  conclude that a well-trained law enforce-

          ment  officer  reasonably  could  have relied  upon  the  Graffam

          affidavit  as  adequate  support  for  the  issuing  magistrate's

          finding that there was  a fair probability that drug  trafficking

          records  would be found  at 16  Holbrook Road  on March  8, 1994.

          Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed. 
                       the district court judgment is affirmed. 
                       _______________________________________

                                          25