US v. Clifton Deron Campbell


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cr-00042-MFU-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015830].. [16-4451]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4451 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CLIFTON DERON CAMPBELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:15-cr-00042-MFU-1) Submitted: January 25, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Ashley B. Neese, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4451 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Clifton Deron Campbell was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). He moved to suppress evidence seized from a residence to pursuant a search warrant, claiming that the affidavit offered in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. The district court denied the motion upon the determination that, even if probable cause was lacking, the good faith exception to the warrant requirement applied. Campbell then pled guilty and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. He appeals, arguing that the district court erred when it denied the motion to suppress. The issue, Fourth but Amendment upon affirmation, and We affirm. provides probable cause, particularly that “no Warrants supported describing by the amend. IV. Oath place searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” shall to or be U.S. Const. Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment generally is inadmissible at trial. United States v. Andrews, 577 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 2009). However, “[u]nder the good faith exception to the warrant requirement, evidence obtained from an invalidated search warrant will be suppressed only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.” 2 United States v. Appeal: 16-4451 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 3 of 5 Lalor, 996 F.2d 1578, 1583 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ordinarily, “a warrant issued by a magistrate . . . suffices to establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith in conducting the search.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, if “the warrant was based on an affidavit that was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,” the good faith exception does not apply, and evidence gathered pursuant to the deficient warrant must be excluded from trial. United States v. Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151, 1156 (4th Cir. 1995). The good faith analysis “is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal” in light of “all of the circumstances.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 n.23. In this regard, courts may consider information in the warrant affidavit and any “uncontroverted inadvertently not facts disclosed to known the to officers magistrate.” but United States v. McKenzie-Gude, 671 F.3d 452, 459 (4th Cir. 2011). We review “factual findings regarding [a] motion suppress for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 2014). to United When the district court has denied a motion to suppress, we view the 3 Appeal: 16-4451 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 4 of 5 evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). In cases where probable a defendant challenges both the existence of cause and the applicability of the good faith exception, we may proceed directly to the good faith analysis without first deciding whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 1994). We agree with the district court that, even if the affidavit supporting the warrant was insufficient because it did not sufficiently tie Campbell to the residence, the good faith exception to the warrant requirement applied. Campbell just outside warrant, officers the residence discovered on his After arresting pursuant person to a an arrest quantity of marijuana, empty baggies, and digital scales-all suggesting drug dealing. This information was included in the affidavit. Additionally, officers possessed but apparently did not divulge to the magistrate the following information strongly suggesting that Campbell resided at the home: they had been surveilling the residence for some time; they had seen Campbell’s car parked there on a regular basis; they knew Campbell’s girlfriend rented the residence; and they had concluded that this was also his residence. well-trained In law light of all enforcement the circumstances, officer believed that search was lawful. 4 objectively a reasonably would have Appeal: 16-4451 Doc: 24 Because Filed: 02/02/2017 the good faith Pg: 5 of 5 exception applied, court properly denied the motion to suppress. affirm. the district We accordingly We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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?