UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4840
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
OMAR EDUARDO JACOBO-MENDOZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-74)
Submitted: May 4, 2005 Decided: June 13, 2005
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Freedman, WHITE & CRUMPLER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Clifton
T. Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Omar Eduardo Jacobo-Mendoza pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute in excess of
five kilograms of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846
and 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). Jacobo-Mendoza was sentenced to 120
months in prison. On appeal, Jacobo-Mendoza claims that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the fruits
of the search conducted at a room he rented because (1) the
affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant failed to
establish probable cause, and (2) in the absence of probable cause,
the officer’s reliance on the search warrant was not reasonable.
This court reviews the district court’s factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States,
517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317,
320 (4th Cir. 2004). The Fourth Amendment requires that no search
warrant shall issue without probable cause. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
Probable cause means that when assessing the totality of the
circumstances, there is a “fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).
Even if the warrant is found to be defective, based on
the absence of probable cause, the evidence obtained from a
- 2 -
defective warrant may nevertheless be admitted under the good faith
exception to the exclusionary rule. United States v. Leon, 468
U.S. 897, 922-23 (1984). Evidence seized pursuant to a defective
warrant will not be suppressed unless: (1) the affidavit contains
knowing or reckless falsity; (2) the magistrate acts as a rubber
stamp for the police; (3) the affidavit does not provide the
magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence
of probable cause; or (4) the warrant is so facially deficient that
an officer could not reasonably rely on it. See id.; United States
v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 121-22 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v.
Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151, 1156 (4th Cir. 1995).
Guided by these principles, we have thoroughly reviewed
the parties’ submissions and conclude that the district court did
not err in denying Jacobo-Mendoza’s motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with 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
- 3 -