UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4825
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARK ANTHONY JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CR-05-83)
Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: September 18, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph J. Watson, JOE WATSON, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Alfred W.
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, Thomas E. Booth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Anthony Jones pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base and 500 grams or
more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and use of a firearm
during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to concurrent 240-month
prison terms. Jones appeals, raising one issue. We affirm.
A state magistrate issued search warrants for Jones’ home
and pickup truck. The searches yielded incriminating evidence,
including drugs, cash, and drug paraphernalia. Jones moved to
suppress the seized items. The district court denied the motion,
finding that there was probable cause to issue the warrants and
that, in any event, the good faith exception to the warrant
requirement, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984),
applied. After his motion was denied, Jones entered his guilty
plea, reserving the right to contest the denial of the suppression
motion on appeal. We review the factual findings underlying the
denial of a motion to suppress for clear error. The district
court’s legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Ornelas v.
United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996).
In Leon, the Court held that “reliable physical evidence
seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a
detached and neutral magistrate . . . should be admissible in the
prosecution’s case in chief,” even if the warrant is ultimately
- 2 -
found to be defective. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. at 913.
There are four circumstances in which an officer’s reliance on a
search warrant would not qualify as objectively reasonable,
including when the magistrate “was misled by information in an
affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was
false except for reckless disregard of the truth.” Id. at 923.
With regard to this circumstance, courts have found that the error
or omission in the material presented to a magistrate must be
significant to the finding of probable cause in order for the good
faith exception not to apply. See United States v. Hammond, 351
F.3d 765, 774 (6th Cir. 2003); United States v. Cazpozzi, 347 F.3d
327, 332 (1st Cir. 2003); United States v. Tuter, 240 F.3d 1292,
1299 (10th Cir. 2001).
Jones contends both that probable cause to issue the
warrant was lacking and that the good faith exception was
inapplicable because of omissions and errors of fact in the
affidavit presented to the magistrate. Where, as here, an
appellant challenges both the probable cause determination and
application of the good faith exception, we may proceed directly to
the question of good faith. See United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d
457, 460 (4th Cir. 2004).
We conclude that the good faith exception was properly
applied. The mistakes and omissions about which Jones complains
were minor and had no bearing on the decision to issue the search
- 3 -
warrants. Together, the affidavit and the affiant’s statements to
the magistrate in support of the warrants correctly stated that
officers responded to a call about a burglary at Jones’ home, where
they found blood and damage to windows and a door. In plain view
in Jones’ truck, officers saw a firearm. Jones had previously been
convicted of drug offenses and was not supposed to possess a gun.
The circumstances closely resembled recent drug-related home
invasions that were under investigation by the affiant and others
in the Sheriff’s Department. Finally, an unidentified man had
just died of a gunshot wound at a local hospital. The man was
wearing gloves, and it appeared to the affiant that he might have
been shot at Jones’ home.
Jones complains that the affiant erroneously stated that
the truck was hidden and that the gun was secreted within the
truck. He also protests that the affiant did not disclose that no
drugs or drug paraphernalia were in plain view in the home or
truck, Jones asked a neighbor to call 911, and officers who patted
him down found no drugs. Given the totality of the circumstances,
these errors and omissions had no bearing on the decision to issue
the warrants.
Because the district court correctly denied the
suppression motion on the basis of the good faith exception to the
warrant requirement, we affirm the convictions. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 4 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -