USA v. Willie Henry

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Willie James Henry. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-13009

Date Filed: 03/17/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13009
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00231-KD-N-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JAMES HENRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(March 17, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-13009

Date Filed: 03/17/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Willie James Henry appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence found during a search of an apartment believed to be his
residence. Police sought the warrant in the course of an investigation of a string of
gas station robberies. Three firearms were found in the residence during the
search, and Henry was a convicted felon. On appeal, Henry argues that the search
warrant sought by Detective Deon Thornton was not supported by probable cause
and that the good-faith exception to exclusion under United States v. Leon, 468
U.S. 897 (1984), should not have been applied. He contends that there was no
minimally sufficient nexus between the illegal activity and the place to be
searched. Further, he asserts that the officers’ mere observation of him entering
the apartment once, without seeing him use a key or carry anything inside, was
insufficient to connect him to the apartment.
We review de novo whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary
rule applies, but the underlying facts upon which that determination is based will
be overturned only if they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Robinson, 336
F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003).
The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard
Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect, and requires that evidence
obtained through an illegal search may not be used by the government in a
subsequent criminal prosecution. United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1312
2

Case: 16-13009

Date Filed: 03/17/2017

Page: 3 of 4

(11th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court created a good-faith exception to this rule,
stating that courts generally should not hold inadmissible evidence obtained by
officers acting in reasonable reliance upon a search warrant later found to be
unsupported by probable cause or technically insufficient. Leon, 468 U.S. at 922.
The Leon good-faith exception does not apply where the warrant is so lacking in
indicia of probable cause that official belief in its validity is entirely unreasonable.
Id. at 923.
Searches pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry into
reasonableness, for a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish
that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith in conducting the search. Id.
at 922. The good-faith exception requires suppression of the evidence only if the
law enforcement officers executing the warrant in question could not have
harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.
Martin, 297 F.3d at 1313. We will determine, under the totality of the
circumstances, whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have relied upon
the warrant. United States v. Taxacher, 902 F.2d 867, 872 (11th Cir. 1990).
The district court did not err by concluding that the good-faith Leon
exception applied, because Detective Thornton could have harbored an objectively
reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause. See Martin, 297 F.3d at
1313. The affidavit established a connection between the ongoing robberies and
3

Case: 16-13009

Date Filed: 03/17/2017

Page: 4 of 4

Henry, there was some basis for Detective Thornton to believe that Henry resided
at the searched apartment, and it was not unreasonable for Detective Thornton to
expect that items involved in the robberies could be found in Henry’s residence.
Given that a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish that a
law enforcement officer acted in good faith, the warrant’s issuance combined with
the lack of questioning by the issuing judge is another indication of good faith by
Detective Thornton. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 922. Looking at the totality of the
circumstances, a reasonably well-trained officer would have relied on the search
warrant, and it does not so lack indicia of probable cause as to render belief in the
possibility of probable cause entirely unreasonable. See id. at 923; Taxacher, 902
F.2d at 872. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

4