PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 08-4721
RAYMOND LEWIS ANDREWS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge.
(5:07-cr-00249-FL-1)
Argued: May 13, 2009
Decided: August 12, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, GREGORY, Circuit Judge,
and Frederick P. STAMP, Jr., Senior United States District
Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia,
sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge Traxler wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Senior Judge Stamp
joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Stephen Clayton Gordon, OFFICE OF THE FED-
ERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
2 UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Thomas P. McNamara, Federal
Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
OPINION
TRAXLER, Chief Judge:
Following a bench trial, Raymond Lewis Andrews was
found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm after having
been convicted of a felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On
appeal, Andrews challenges the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress evidence seized from his house and used
to secure a conviction against him. Finding no error in the rul-
ing of the district court, we affirm.
I.
On August 24, 2006, Cumberland County law enforcement
officials were conducting a parcel interdiction at a Federal
Express ("FedEx") shipping center in Fayetteville, North Car-
olina. Through the use of drug dogs, officers identified a
suspicious package. The package was addressed to "Crystal
Rhodes" at 1528 Cashiers Lane, Apartment 7, Fayetteville,
North Carolina. Pursuant to a search warrant, officials opened
the package and discovered approximately eight pounds of
marijuana.
At the request of the Cumberland County officers, Detec-
tive Roy Gallegos of the Fayetteville Police Department
agreed to arrange a controlled delivery of the intercepted
UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS 3
package to the addressee. After taking custody of the package,
Detective Gallegos learned that FedEx had received a tele-
phone call instructing that the package in question be deliv-
ered to Apartment 9 rather than Apartment 7. Detective
Gallegos met with FedEx employees to confirm that FedEx
changed the delivery address at the request of the shipper.
Detective Gallegos obtained a "Customer Exception Request"
computer printout reflecting that "Becky Rhodes," the pur-
ported customer who was shipping the package, called on
August 24 and requested that the delivery address be changed
to "Apartment 9"–-the rest of the delivery address, including
the street number, remained unchanged.
With this additional information in hand, Detective Galle-
gos dispatched police officers to investigate the new delivery
location. The officers discovered that 1528 Cashiers Lane,
Apartment 9, did not exist and that the only Apartment 9
located on Cashier’s Lane had a street address of 1520 Cash-
iers Lane. Detective Gallegos also determined that no one by
the name of Crystal Rhodes, the addressee named on the
package, resided at either 1528 Cashiers Lane, or at 1520
Cashiers Lane. Based on these facts, Detective Gallegos con-
cluded that the intended destination for the package was
Apartment 9, 1520 Cashiers Lane.
In order to apprehend the unknown persons involved in the
shipping and receiving of this package, Gallegos applied for
an anticipatory search warrant for marijuana and other con-
trolled substances, firearms and "items of drug furtherance."
J.A. 83. The anticipatory warrant was to be executed follow-
ing the controlled delivery:
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE ISSUANCE OF
THIS WARRANT AN ATTEMPTED DELIVERY
OF THE PACKAGE WILL TAKE PLACE. UPON
DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PACK-
AGE, PROBABLE CAUSE WILL EXIST THAT
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES WILL BE PRES-
4 UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS
ENT. BASED UPON DELIVERY OF THE PACK-
AGE . . . , AN ANTICIPATORY SEARCH
WARRANT IS SOUGHT FOR THE PREMISES
OF: 1520 CASHIERS LN, APT #9 FAYETTE-
VILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28311.
J.A. 83. In the application, Gallegos explained that an inter-
cepted FedEx package containing marijuana was addressed to
1528 Cashiers Lane, Apartment 9, but that "A SEPARATE
INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT 1528 CASHIERS
LN APT #9 WAS ACTUALLY 1520 CASHIERS LN FAY-
ETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28311." J.A. 83 (empha-
sis added). The application did not explain that the package
was originally to be delivered to Apartment 7 at 1528 Cash-
iers Lane, or that FedEx changed the delivery address to
Apartment 9 at the request of the customer. Also, the applica-
tion provided no further details about the "separate" investiga-
tion.
In the affidavit accompanying the warrant application,
Detective Gallegos identified the address of the premises to
be searched as "1528 CASHIERS LN. APT #9." J.A. 82.
Gallegos "informed the magistrate, under oath, that he had
provided a mistaken address in the affidavit accompanying
the warrant application, and that the address to be searched
was 1520 Cashiers Lane, Apartment 9." J.A. 117. Then, "[i]n
clear view of the magistrate, Detective Gallegos manually
changed the address on the affidavit from 1528 to 1520, [and]
placed initials next to the change." Id. Finally,
[w]hile still under oath, Detective Gallegos detailed
the nature of the ‘separate investigation’ referred to
in the search warrant application. Specifically, he
told the magistrate that he sent police officers to
1528 Cashiers Lane who determined that the only
house number 9 on that street corresponded to 1520
Cashiers Lane.
UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS 5
Id. (emphasis added). Detective Gallegos also told the magis-
trate that the supposed recipient of the drug package, "Crystal
Rhodes," did not reside at Apartment 7, 1528 Cashiers
Lane—the original delivery address—or any other address in
the vicinity: "[T]here was no Crystal Rhodes out there, that
lived out there." J.A. 52. The magistrate concluded that proba-
ble cause existed and issued the anticipatory search warrant
for 1520 Cashiers Lane, Apartment 9.
Finally, Detective Gallegos sent an officer posing as a Fed-
eral Express employee to deliver the drug package to 1520
Cashiers Lane, Apartment 9. Andrews answered the door, and
the undercover officer explained "that the parcel was going to
1528 Number 9 but that number 9 did not exist" and that
Andrews’ "trailer was the only one with a 9 on it." J.A. 45.
Andrews signed for the package using "John" as an alias,
thanked the undercover officer and placed the package inside
his residence.
According to Detective Gallegos, Andrews’ acceptance of
the package "triggered" the anticipatory search warrant.
Before agents executed the warrant, however, they observed
Andrews take the package from his trailer, walk it down the
street to 1524 Cashiers Lane, Apartment 8, and place the
package outside of the trailer at that address. Agents then
arrested Andrews at 1524 Cashiers Lane immediately after he
placed the package there.
Following the arrest of Andrews, law enforcement officers
executed the search warrant for Andrews’ trailer, resulting in
the seizure of illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, a Ruger rifle
and ammunition. Andrews, after being provided his Miranda
warnings, told Detective Gallegos "that he was receiving the
box that was supposed to be delivered on the 24th to the cor-
ner trailer, which was number 7, and give it to a subject
named Mason." J.A. 46.
Andrews, having previously been convicted of a felony,
was indicted for illegally possessing a firearm. Andrews
6 UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS
moved to suppress the evidence seized in the search, arguing
that the facts presented to the issuing judge were insufficient
to establish probable cause because there was no evidence
establishing a nexus between Andrews’ home and the FedEx
package containing marijuana.
Andrews’ motion was considered initially by a federal
magistrate judge, who concluded that the materials presented
by Detective Gallegos, "combined with Gallegos’ verbal
statements to the [issuing] magistrate," established "a substan-
tial basis [to believe] that following a controlled delivery of
the intercepted parcel, a search of 1520 Cashiers Lane, Apart-
ment 9 would uncover evidence of wrongdoing." J.A. 90. The
magistrate judge rejected Andrews’ contention that there were
no facts presented connecting Apartment 9, 1520 Cashiers
Lane, to the items sought in the search, concluding that a suf-
ficient link was established through evidence that FedEx
changed the apartment number at the request of the person
shipping the package, making Apartment 9 "the current pack-
age address, regardless of what was actually written on the
address label." J.A. 91. Andrews’ residence was linked to the
package because it was the only Apartment number 9 on the
street.
Additionally, the magistrate judge concluded that even if
the search warrant lacked probable cause, the evidence seized
in the search would nevertheless be admissible under the good
faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United
States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919-21 (1984).
The district court agreed with the recommendation of the
magistrate judge that Andrews’ motion to suppress be denied
and rejected Andrews’ objections to the report and recom-
mendation of the magistrate judge. Andrews argued that the
issuing magistrate was not presented with sufficient evidence
to find probable cause, and that the Leon good faith exception
did not apply because Detective Gallegos intentionally or
recklessly presented false information to the magistrate. See
UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS 7
id. at 923. Specifically, Andrews claimed that Detective
Gallegos’ affidavit incorrectly stated that the FedEx package
was addressed to "1528 Cashiers Ln Apt. #9" when, in fact,
the address written on the package was "1528 Cashiers Ln
Apt. #7," and nothing on the face of the affidavit explained
the circumstances surrounding the change.
The district court first addressed the good faith issue. See
United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir. 2004)
(explaining that where defendant challenges both the probable
cause determination and the application of the good faith
exception, the court may proceed directly to the issue of good
faith). The court concluded that Andrews failed to demon-
strate that any omission from Gallegos’ affidavit was deliber-
ate or was the result of recklessness. The district court
reasoned that Detective Gallegos’ sworn testimony before the
state magistrate "undermine[d]" Andrews’ argument that
Detective Gallegos intentionally or recklessly misled the mag-
istrate by failing to include in his affidavit the fact that the
FedEx parcel was originally bound for Apartment 7, 1528
Cashiers Lane. J.A. 108. While applying for the warrant,
Detective Gallegos mentioned to the state magistrate that
although Apartment 9, 1528 Cashiers Lane, was not a valid
address, Apartment 7, 1528 Cashiers Lane was valid. It is not
clear, however, whether he explained to the magistrate that
Apartment 7 was the initial FedEx delivery address or the cir-
cumstances causing the substitution of Apartment 9 for Apart-
ment 7. Nevertheless, the court in essence concluded that the
voluntary mention of such facts is inconsistent with the intent
to mislead the magistrate by omitting them.
II.
As did the district court, we exercise our discretion to
forego discussing the validity of the search warrant and pro-
ceed directly to the question of whether the district court
properly refused to suppress the evidence seized in the search
based on the officers’ good faith reliance on the warrant. See
8 UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS
Leon, 468 U.S. at 925; United States v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240,
243 (4th Cir. 1994).
Generally, evidence seized in violation of the Fourth
Amendment is subject to suppression under the exclusionary
rule, see United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347-48
(1974); Perez, 393 F.3d at 460, the overarching purpose of
which is "to deter future unlawful police conduct," Calandra,
414 U.S. at 347. The deterrence objective, however, "is not
achieved through the suppression of evidence obtained by ‘an
officer acting with objective good faith’ within the scope of
a search warrant issued by a magistrate." Perez, 393 F.3d at
461 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 920); see United States v.
Mowatt, 513 F.3d 395, 404 (4th Cir. 2008) ("[I]t is the magis-
trate’s responsibility to determine whether probable cause
exists, and officers cannot be expected to second-guess that
determination in close cases."). Thus, in Leon, the Supreme
Court modified the exclusionary rule to allow the use of evi-
dence "obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on
a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate
but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause."
Leon, 468 U.S. at 900. "Leon teaches that a court should not
suppress the fruits of a search conducted under the authority
of a warrant, even a ‘subsequently invalidated’ warrant,
unless ‘a reasonably well trained officer would have known
that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authoriza-
tion.’" United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir.
2002) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 n.23). Accordingly,
"under Leon’s good faith exception, evidence obtained pursu-
ant to a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate does not
need to be excluded if the officer’s reliance on the warrant
was ‘objectively reasonable.’" Perez, 393 F.3d at 461 (quot-
ing Leon, 468 U.S. at 922).
Typically, "a warrant issued by a magistrate . . . suffices to
establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good
faith in conducting the search" and thus searches executed
"pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry
UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS 9
into reasonableness." Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). That said, the Supreme Court identified
four circumstances in which an officer’s reliance on a search
warrant would not be "objectively reasonable": (1) where "the
magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by infor-
mation in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would
have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the
truth," id. at 923; (2) "where the issuing magistrate wholly
abandoned his judicial role" as a detached and neutral deci-
sionmaker, id.; (3) where the officer’s affidavit is "so lacking
in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its
existence entirely unreasonable," id. (internal quotation marks
omitted); and (4) where "a warrant [is] so facially deficient
. . . that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it
to be valid." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Andrews
contends that three of these circumstances are present in his
case, precluding the application of the Leon good faith excep-
tion.
A.
Andrews contends that Leon does not apply because the
facts supplied to the issuing magistrate so clearly failed to
establish probable cause that reliance on the search warrant
was unreasonable. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 923.1 We disagree.
1
Relying on United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 121 (4th Cir. 1996),
Andrews suggests that the applicable standard is whether the supporting
affidavit provided a "substantial basis" for the magistrate to conclude
probable cause exists. Under this view, the Leon good faith exception
would be inapplicable if the magistrate did not have a "substantial basis"
for determining probable cause.
Of course, the "substantial basis" test is the standard we use when
reviewing a probable cause determination. See United States v. Hodge,
354 F.3d 305, 309 (4th Cir. 2004) ("‘[T]he duty of a reviewing court is
simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding
that probable cause existed."’ (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213,
238-39 (1983)). In the Leon context, we begin with the assumption that
there was not a substantial basis for finding probable cause; the only ques-
10 UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS
Assuming, without deciding, the information presented to the
magistrate was insufficient to establish probable cause, it cer-
tainly was not "so lacking in indicia of probable cause" that
reliance on the anticipatory warrant was "entirely unreason-
able." Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).
Usually, an officer applies for a warrant to search a place
for criminal evidence that is already located at the place-to-
be-searched. By contrast, "[a]n anticipatory warrant is ‘a war-
rant based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at
some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime
will be located at a specified place.’" United States v. Grubbs,
547 U.S. 90, 94 (2006) (quoting 2 W. LaFave, Search and
Seizure § 3.7(c) 398 (4th ed. 2004)). Otherwise, anticipatory
warrants are very much the same as ordinary warrants—both
are predicated on the notion that there is probable cause to
believe that "evidence will be found when the search is con-
ducted." Id. at 95.
Like the search warrant at issue in this case, "[m]ost antici-
patory warrants subject their execution to some condition pre-
cedent other than the mere passage of time—a so-called
‘triggering condition’"—which, when satisfied, becomes the
final piece of evidence needed to establish probable cause. Id.
at 94 (explaining that the search warrant would not be exe-
cuted "until the parcel [containing child pornography] has
been received by a person(s) and has been physically taken
into the residence"). Here, the support affidavit supplied by
tion is whether reliance on a warrant that lacks such a "substantial basis"
was nevertheless reasonable.
We have previously explained that Wilhelm’s substantial basis language
is inconsistent with Leon. See United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509,
521 n.17 (4th Cir. 2004) ("If a lack of substantial basis also prevented
application of the Leon objective good faith exception, the exception
would be devoid of substance." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS 11
Detective Gallegos stated that "WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE
ISSUANCE OF THIS WARRANT AN ATTEMPTED
DELIVERY OF THE PACKAGE WILL TAKE PLACE.
UPON DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PACK-
AGE, PROBABLE CAUSE WILL EXIST THAT CON-
TROLLED SUBSTANCES WILL BE PRESENT." J.A. 83
(emphasis added).
When an anticipatory warrant contains such a triggering
condition, the magistrate’s probable cause determination
"goes not merely to what will probably be found if the condi-
tion is met" but "also to the likelihood that the condition will
occur." Grubbs, 547 U.S. at 96. Indeed, if the magistrate did
not have to consider whether it was likely that the triggering
condition would ever occur, then "an anticipatory warrant
could be issued for every house in the country, authorizing
search and seizure if contraband should be delivered—though
for any single location there is no likelihood that contraband
will be delivered." Id. Thus, where an anticipatory warrant is
conditioned on a triggering event, the probable cause determi-
nation is two-fold: "It must be true not only that if the trigger-
ing condition occurs ‘there is a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particu-
lar place,’ but also that there is probable cause to believe the
triggering condition will occur." Id. at 96-97 (internal citation
omitted).
Clearly, there was a sufficient basis here for the magistrate
to conclude that satisfaction of the triggering condi-
tion—delivery and acceptance of a FedEx package known to
contain marijuana—would supply probable cause for the
search. See id. at 97 ("In this case, the occurrence of the trig-
gering condition—successful delivery of the videotape to
Grubbs residence—would plainly establish probable cause for
the search."). A slightly more difficult question is whether the
magistrate had probable cause to conclude that the triggering
condition was likely to occur. Of course, we need not address
that question as the issue before the panel is simply whether
12 UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS
the information before the magistrate was "so lacking in indi-
cia of probable cause as to render official belief in its exis-
tence entirely unreasonable." Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the evidence presented to the magistrate
was not so lacking that it would be unreasonable to believe
there was probable cause linking Andrews’ home to the
FedEx parcel containing drugs. In considering this issue, we
are not limited solely to the affidavit but rather "should exam-
ine the totality of the information presented to the magistrate."
Perez, 393 F.3d at 462 (internal quotation marks omitted). At
a minimum, the following facts were presented to the magis-
trate and provide a reasonable basis for finding probable
cause to search Andrews’ house upon delivery and acceptance
of the package: a package known to contain approximately
eight pounds of marijuana was shipped via FedEx to "Crystal
Rhodes" at Apartment 9, 1528 Cashiers Lane, Fayetteville,
North Carolina; no one known as "Crystal Rhodes," the pur-
ported recipient of the drugs, lived at 1528 Cashiers Lane; and
that the only "Apartment 9" on the same street was located at
1520 Cashiers Lane.2
In view of these facts, we reject this particular challenge to
the district court’s application of the Leon good faith excep-
tion.
2
We note that, although the search warrant was "triggered" when
Andrews accepted delivery of the package containing drugs and took it
into his residence, law enforcement officers apparently did not execute the
search until after Andrews removed the package from the residence and
dropped it on the adjoining property. The search warrant, however, was
not limited to the package alone; rather, the magistrate found probable
cause that firearms and "other items of drug furtherance" would be found
on the premises when the triggering condition occurred and the search was
conducted. J.A. 83. Andrews does not challenge the breadth of the search
warrant. See United States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463, 473 (4th Cir. 2006)
("The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be no broader than the
probable cause on which it is based." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS 13
B.
Andrews also challenges the district court’s application of
Leon’s good faith exception on the basis that Detective Galle-
gos either intentionally or recklessly misled the magistrate by
omitting from his supporting affidavit that the original desti-
nation of the FedEx package was Apartment 7, 1528 Cashiers
Lane, not Apartment 9 as implied in the supporting affidavit.
See Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 (reliance on warrant unreasonable
where magistrate "was misled by information . . . the affiant
knew was false or would have known was false except for his
reckless disregard of the truth").
Andrews contends that the omission of this information
kept the magistrate from understanding that the address law
enforcement wished to search did not match either the street
address or the apartment number of the original delivery
address. Had he known this, Andrews argues, the magistrate
would have concluded that there was no link between the
premises to be searched and the drugs and, therefore, no prob-
able cause.
We disagree. In challenging a search warrant on the theory
that the officer’s affidavit "omit[ted] material facts with the
intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they
thereby made, the affidavit misleading," United States v.
Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 300 (4th. Cir. 1990) (internal quotation
marks omitted), the defendant must show (1) that the officer
deliberately or recklessly omitted the information at issue and
(2) that the inclusion of this information would have defeated
probable cause, see id. at 301.
First, as the district court implied, there is nothing in the
record to indicate that the omission of the original FedEx
delivery address was the result of intentional or reckless con-
duct. On the contrary, the record reflects that Officer Gallegos
was diligent and careful in ensuring that the proper address
was searched. FedEx changed the official delivery address
14 UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS
based on a telephone request from the purported shipper;
Officer Gallegos reasonably relied on the information sup-
plied to him by FedEx, much in the same way he would have
relied on the FedEx label affixed to the package in the
absence of a change order. Detective Gallegos obtained paper
work from FedEx relating to the change of address and sent
officers to confirm the location of the altered delivery address.
And, since the shipper called FedEx to change the apartment
number, it was reasonable for Detective Gallegos to assume
the "Apartment 9" portion of the address was correct and to
focus on the apartment number rather than the street address
in determining the likely destination of the drugs.
Moreover, Detective Gallegos, while under oath, explained
to the magistrate why he did not believe that 1528 Cashiers
Lane was the intended destination for the package containing
drugs, including the fact that Apartment 9, 1528 Cashiers
Lane was not a valid address and the fact that no one by the
name of "Crystal Rhodes," the purported recipient of the
drugs, lived at Apartment 7, 1528 Cashiers Lane, which was
a valid address. That Detective Gallegos would mention
Apartment 7 suggests that he was not attempting to mislead
or hide contradictory facts from the magistrate.
Thus, the district court rightly found that "once FedEx offi-
cially changed the delivery address to 1528 Cashiers Lane,
Apartment 9, that address became the official delivery loca-
tion for the package." J.A. 109. In light of these undisputed
facts, we fail to see any evidence that Detective Gallegos
recklessly disregarded the truth or intentionally misled the
magistrate.
Second, we agree that the information regarding Apartment
7 was not material to the probable cause determination. See
Colkley, 899 F.2d at 300-01. Andrews argues that the magis-
trate, if presented with the full history of the delivery
addresses, "might well have wondered whether 1528 Cashiers
Lane, number 7 was the intended address all along." Brief of
UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS 15
Appellant at 31. Unfortunately for Andrews, this argument is
not only speculative but it runs contrary to common sense.
Because the shipper specifically requested that the delivery
address be changed from Apartment 7 to Apartment 9, we fail
to see how the magistrate could reasonably conclude, against
the totality of the facts before him, that the intended delivery
address was still Apartment 7. We agree with the district court
that the original address is not significant for purposes of the
probable cause calculus in view of the acceptance of the
FedEx package by Andrews as well as all of the facts previ-
ously discussed that link Andrews’ house to the package.
Accordingly, we reject Andrews’ contention that the omitted
facts are material, since "an omission must do more than
potentially affect the probable cause determination: it must be
necessary to the finding of probable cause." Colkley, 899 F.2d
at 301.
C.
Finally, we reject Andrews’ argument that the good faith
exception cannot apply here because the issuing magistrate
did not fulfill his intended role as a neutral and detached judi-
cial officer but rather functioned merely as a rubber stamp for
Detective Gallegos’ application for a search warrant. See
Bynum, 293 F.3d at 195. Andrews suggests that Detective
Gallegos failed to present any facts to the magistrate that
would connect Andrews’ home to the drug-related activity in
question, save for the fact that he lived in an apartment num-
ber 9. Andrews contends that the magistrate abandoned its
judicial role because, without a sufficient factual basis, the
issuance of a search warrant is a "rubber stamp" of approval
on the officer’s opinion of probable cause.
Essentially, this argument recasts Andrews’ argument that
no officer could reasonably rely on the warrant because there
was an insufficient basis for a probable cause finding—an
argument we have already rejected. See, e.g., United States v.
McKneely, 6 F.3d 1447, 1455-56 (10th Cir. 1993) (rejecting
16 UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS
the argument that the magistrate abandoned its neutral role
simply because the warrant was insufficient); United States v.
Sager, 743 F.2d 1261, 1267 (8th Cir. 1984) (rejecting similar
argument as "only another way of phrasing the argument that
no one who relied upon the affidavit could have been objec-
tively reasonable" which the court had "already rejected").
Andrews has not identified any specific instances demonstrat-
ing that the issuing magistrate was not neutral or detached.
Accordingly, we dispense with this argument as well.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the
district court denying Andrews’ motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED