Court Opinion

ID: 9780943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 14:01:07.068715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:40.837545
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12693    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/30/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12693
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       SAWELJIA TYREE FLOYD,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Alabama
                 D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cr-00161-RAH-SMD-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12693      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/30/2023     Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12693

       Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Saweljia Floyd appeals the denial of his motion to suppress
       evidence of guns and drugs seized following the execution of a
       search warrant. He maintains that the affidavit in support of the
       search warrant failed to establish probable cause and included ma-
       terial misrepresentations and omissions. After careful review, we
       reject these arguments and affirm the denial of suppression.
                                         I.
               In early 2018, Dustin Holt, a narcotics detective with the Au-
       burn Police Department (“APD”), began investigating Floyd for
       suspected drug-trafficking activity at a single-family home located
       at 312 Jones Street, where Floyd’s girlfriend resided. Over several
       months, Holt and other officers surveilled the residence sporadi-
       cally from several nearby locations, including the parking lot of a
       church. Holt also used a confidential informant (the “informant”)
       to make controlled buys of cocaine from Floyd at the back door of
       the residence.
              On May 2, 2018, Holt and Jimmy Butler, a sergeant in the
       APD narcotics division, conducted a controlled buy with the same
       informant at the residence. At a meeting before the buy, they
       searched the informant and provided him with $100 in identifiable
       currency and an electronic monitoring device. The two officers
       differed on whether the device transmitted both audio and video
       (Holt), or just audio (Butler), but no recordings exist. After the
USCA11 Case: 22-12693     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023    Page: 3 of 9

       22-12693               Opinion of the Court                        3

       officers met with the information, they parked in the nearby
       church parking lot, where they could observe the back door of the
       residence using binoculars.
              From their position at the church, Holt and Butler observed
       the informant approach the back door of the residence. They also
       monitored the informant’s activities with the electronic device.
       Looking through binoculars, they saw Floyd open the back door
       and then make a hand-to-hand exchange with the informant, who
       remained outside. Holt stated that he had an unobstructed view of
       the exchange from the church parking lot, despite the existence of
       several trees and a building located between the parking lot and the
       residence. Butler likewise said that he could “clearly see the back
       of the house” from their location and that he visually identified
       Floyd. The informant left the residence and immediately met with
       Holt and Butler at a separate location. There, the informant
       handed over a substance, which he said he had received from
       Floyd, and Holt verified through a field test that it was cocaine.
              On May 4, 2018, Holt applied for a search warrant at 312
       Jones Street. His affidavit in support of the search warrant read, in
       relevant part, as follows:
                    Within the past 72 hours Detective Dustin
             Holt and Detective Sergeant Jimmy Butler met with
             a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as
             [“informant”], and made a controlled buy of Cocaine,
             from Floyd at this residence. During this meeting the
             [informant] and [informant]’s vehicle were searched,
USCA11 Case: 22-12693         Document: 26-1         Date Filed: 08/30/2023         Page: 4 of 9

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-12693

               and the [informant] was fitted with an electronic
               transmitting device and provided with U.S. currency,
               with pre-recorded serial numbers, to purchase Co-
               caine with. Detectives then followed the [informant]
               to 312 Jones Street, Auburn, Alabama and observed
               the [informant] meeting with Floyd. Detectives also
               monitored the transaction by visual and audio sur-
               veillance. Upon completion of the transaction the [in-
               formant] met with detectives and turned the Cocaine
               over to Detective Dustin Holt’s control. Detective
               Dustin Holt verified the substance to have the pres-
               ence of Cocaine, by the use of a field test kit. Detec-
               tives have utilized [informant]s to make buys, of Co-
               caine, from Floyd, at 312 Jones Street, Auburn, Ala-
               bama in the past.
       When Holt and other officers executed the search warrant six days
       after the controlled buy, on May 8, 2018, they discovered quantities
       of cocaine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine, as well as $1,400
       in cash, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. The marked currency
       used in the exchange was not recovered.
                                              II.
             Following his indictment on five drug and gun crimes 1,
       Floyd moved to suppress evidence from the search on the ground

       1 Floyd was indicted on the following five counts: possession of a firearm as a

       convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession with intent to
       distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession
USCA11 Case: 22-12693         Document: 26-1        Date Filed: 08/30/2023         Page: 5 of 9

       22-12693                  Opinion of the Court                                5

       that the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not establish
       probable cause and was based on material misrepresentations or
       omissions. Floyd asserted that the affidavit failed to establish the
       reliability of the informant or to describe the alleged prior con-
       trolled buys, and he suggested that the affidavit fabricated im-
       portant details about the controlled buy on May 2.
               A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and heard
       testimony from Holt and Butler, who testified about the facts
       we’ve described above. The judge also heard from Floyd, who
       flatly denied selling any drugs from the residence.
              The magistrate judge recommended that Floyd’s motion to
       suppress be denied. In the magistrate judge’s view, the warrant
       affidavit established probable cause to search the residence at 312
       Jones Street. Despite the deficiencies identified by Floyd, the mag-
       istrate judge explained, “Holt’s assertions that he witnessed a
       properly executed controlled buy at the residence establish a fair
       probability that evidence of a crime would be located at 312 Jones
       Street.” The magistrate judge also rejected Floyd’s argument that
       the affidavit contained material lies or omissions, finding that the
       officers’ testimony was credible.
            The district court overruled Floyd’s objections and adopted
       the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Not long

       with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of § 841(a)(1); possession
       with intent to distribute powder cocaine, in violation of § 841(a)(1); and pos-
       session of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of
       18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
USCA11 Case: 22-12693      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 08/30/2023      Page: 6 of 9

       6                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12693

       after, Floyd pled guilty to two counts—possession with intent to
       distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C.
       § 841, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-traffick-
       ing crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)—under a written plea agree-
       ment that preserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion to
       suppress. The district court sentenced Floyd to a total of 240
       months of imprisonment, and this appeal followed.
                                         III.
               We review the denial of a motion to suppress as a mixed
       question of law and fact, reviewing findings of fact, including cred-
       ibility determinations, for clear error and the application of law to
       those facts de novo. United States v. White, 593 F.3d 1199, 1202 (11th
       Cir. 2010). Similarly, we review de novo whether probable cause
       existed to support a search warrant, although we “take care both
       to review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give
       due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges
       and local law enforcement officers.” United States v. Gamory, 635
       F.3d 480, 491 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
              Search warrants must be supported by probable cause and
       describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items
       to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV. The task of the magistrate
       judge issuing a warrant is to make a practical, common-sense deci-
       sion whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the probable-
       cause affidavit, there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime
       will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238
       (1983). The duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the
USCA11 Case: 22-12693      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       22-12693               Opinion of the Court                          7

       magistrate judge had a substantial basis for concluding that proba-
       ble cause existed. Id. at 238–39. In conducting this review, we ap-
       ply a “realistic and commonsense approach,” not a “hypertech-
       nical” one. United States v. Miller, 24 F.3d 1357, 1361 (11th Cir.
       1994).
               A probable-cause affidavit “must provide the magistrate
       [judge] with a substantial basis for determining the existence of
       probable cause.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 239. Conclusory assertions are
       insufficient. Id. The affidavit must establish with “fresh” infor-
       mation “a connection between the defendant and the residence to
       be searched and a link between the residence and any criminal ac-
       tivity.” United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2002).
       If an informant is mentioned, the affiant must establish the inform-
       ant’s “veracity” and “basis of knowledge,” unless “there is sufficient
       independent corroboration of an informant’s information.” Id.
               Affidavits supporting search warrants are presumptively
       valid. Gamory, 635 F.3d at 490. Yet a defendant can invalidate a
       warrant by showing that the affiant intentionally or recklessly
       made material misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit.
       United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1309 (11th Cir. 2009); see
       Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171–72 (1978). The defendant
       bears the burden of proving that, “absent those misrepresentations
       or omissions, probable cause would have been lacking.” United
       States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 987 (11th Cir. 2001).
             Here, the district court properly denied Floyd’s motion to
       suppress. The facts set forth in the search-warrant affidavit
USCA11 Case: 22-12693     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023    Page: 8 of 9

       8                      Opinion of the Court                22-12693

       provided the issuing “magistrate [judge] with a substantial basis for
       determining the existence of probable cause.” Gates, 462 U.S. at
       239. Holt wrote in the affidavit that, in the latest of multiple con-
       trolled buys during an investigation of suspected narcotics traffick-
       ing at 312 Jones Street, he observed an informant purchase cocaine
       from Floyd at the back door of the residence on May 2. That infor-
       mation was “fresh,” and it established a connection among Floyd,
       the residence, and cocaine trafficking. See Martin, 297 F.3d at 1314.
       Plus, Holt’s personal observations of the controlled buy, conducted
       according to a set of procedures designed to ensure its reliability,
       independently corroborated any information received from the in-
       formant, making it unnecessary to establish the informant’s verac-
       ity or basis of knowledge in the affidavit. See id.
               Floyd does not dispute on appeal that the facts presented in
       the affidavit provided a substantial basis for concluding that proba-
       ble cause existed. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238–39. Instead, he main-
       tains that the validity of the warrant is fatally undermined by two
       misrepresentations or omissions. We disagree.
              First, he takes issue with the statement in the affidavit that
       “[d]etectives also monitored the transaction by visual and audio
       surveillance.” Preliminarily, we note that the statement appears to
       be true. The evidence reflected that the detectives conducted vis-
       ual surveillance through binoculars and audio surveillance through
       the monitoring device.
             But even assuming the affidavit wrongly implied that the
       controlled buy was recorded in some way, that information was
USCA11 Case: 22-12693      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/30/2023     Page: 9 of 9

       22-12693               Opinion of the Court                         9

       not material to probable cause. See Kapordelis, 569 F.3d at 1309.
       Holt did not purport to rely on the content of any recording in the
       affidavit. And whether the exchange was recorded or not, Holt’s
       own personal observations of the controlled buy provided a rea-
       sonable basis for a finding of probable cause, as we just explained.
       Floyd has not shown that, absent this misrepresentation, probable
       cause would have been lacking. See Novaton, 271 F.3d at 987.
              Second, Floyd asserts that the affidavit intentionally or reck-
       lessly omitted information about visual obstacles between the
       church parking lot and the back door of the residence, which Floyd
       deemed to be material. But nothing suggests that Holt, in prepar-
       ing the affidavit, either intentionally or recklessly omitted this in-
       formation. Nor would this information have defeated probable
       cause. See Kapordelis, 569 F.3d at 1309. Both Butler and Holt testi-
       fied that, despite the presence of trees and other objects in between,
       they had an unobstructed view through binoculars of the back door
       of the residence from their position in the church parking lot. The
       magistrate judge found that the officers were credible, and Floyd
       falls well short of showing that determination to be clearly errone-
       ous. See White, 593 F.3d at 1202.
            For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of the
       motion to suppress.
             AFFIRMED.