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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-4451]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
CLIFTON DERON CAMPBELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
January 25, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
Clifton Deron Campbell was charged with possession of a
§ 922(g)(1) (2012).
He moved to suppress evidence seized from a
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
He appeals, arguing that the district court erred when
it denied the motion to suppress.
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
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
affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable
belief in the existence of probable cause.”
United States v.
Pg: 3 of 5
Lalor, 996 F.2d 1578, 1583 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation
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
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.
regard, courts may consider information in the warrant affidavit
States v. McKenzie-Gude, 671 F.3d 452, 459 (4th Cir. 2011).
suppress for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.”
States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 2014).
district court has denied a motion to suppress, we view the
Pg: 4 of 5
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government.
States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005).
cause and the applicability of the good faith exception, we may
deciding whether the warrant was supported by probable cause.
United States v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 1994).
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.
marijuana, empty baggies, and digital scales-all suggesting drug
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
believed that search was lawful.
Pg: 5 of 5
court properly denied the motion to suppress.
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.
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?