US v. Clifton Deron Campbell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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