US v. Donald Wilson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONALD JAMAL WILSON, a/k/a Cash, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00034-1)
February 12, 2009
March 18, 2009
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacob A. Manning, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Donald Jamal Wilson was convicted after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, cocaine, and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and two counts of managing a residence for the purpose of storing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 856(a)(2) (2006). Wilson denying appeals, his
Wilson was sentenced to life imprisonment. that the district court erred at in his
apartment because the search warrant was not based upon probable cause. Finding no error, we affirm. Legal conclusions underlying the denial of a motion to suppress are reviewed de novo, while factual findings are
reviewed for clear error. 551, 553 (4th Cir. 2007). defendant's suppression
United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d When the district court has denied a motion, this court construes the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government.
States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). In reviewing the propriety of issuing a search
warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 2 238 (1983). The facts
presented to the issuing judge need only convince a person of reasonable caution that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at the place to be searched. 730, 742 (1983). Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S.
Moreover, "the determination of probable cause
by the issuing magistrate is entitled to great deference by this court." United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 309 (4th Cir.
2004) (citation omitted). Here, contained described four the the affidavit supporting The of first two the and other search third warrant
paragraphs. prior arrests
possession of controlled substances, one of whom was arrested shortly after leaving the residence in question. The second
paragraph discussed the surveillance of that residence that was undertaken as a result of "prior drug information" received
about the apartment. traffickers were seen
During that surveillance, suspected drug entering and exiting the residence.
Finally, the fourth paragraph articulated information given by a "cooperating witness" who had purchased illegal drugs at the residence the day before. The search warrant was obtained in the late night
hours of August 7, 2006, and the search was executed in the early morning hours of August 8, 2006. which turned up amounts of illegal Based on this search, and paraphernalia, Wilson was
police obtained arrest warrants for the defendant. 3
arrest was used to obtain a second search warrant for another residence belonging to Wilson. Wilson argues that there was nothing to demonstrate that the information provided by the cooperating witness in the affidavit was reliable. Wilson also contends that the other
portions of the affidavit contained conclusory statements devoid of stated factual underpinnings, and in sum the affidavit did not provide probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be discovered at his residence. Furthermore, Wilson
maintains that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply here because the affidavit was nothing more than bare bones assertions. arrest was invalid as Therefore, Wilson argues, the subsequent the arrest warrants were based on
information obtained during the search that should have been excluded. Consequently, Wilson contends that any evidence
obtained during not only the first search, but also during the arrest and the second search, should have been suppressed. While the information provided by the cooperating
witness was not verified or shown to be reliable, the remainder of the affidavit demonstrated probable cause for the search
We therefore conclude the district court did not err
in denying Wilson's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search. As we find probable cause did exist for the 4
issuance of the search warrant, we need not address Wilson's arguments regarding the application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule and his arguments concerning the
subsequent arrest and search. Accordingly, denying Wilson's we affirm the district We court's with order oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?