F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 31 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 00-4001
v. (District of Utah)
(D.C. No. 98-CR-250-S)
MARTEN BERROCAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant-Appellant Marten Berrocal entered a conditional guilty plea to
one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Berrocal appeals the denial of his motion to suppress
evidence obtained during a no-knock, nighttime search of his residence.
Jurisdiction to consider Berrocal’s appeal arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
court affirms the order of the district court denying Berrocal’s motion to
suppress.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Officer John Christoffersen of the Provo City Police Department received
information from a concerned citizen regarding the Berrocal residence. The
citizen suspected drug trafficking in the residence due to the number of
individuals who stopped at Berrocal’s residence but remained only briefly.
Christoffersen then conducted what he called a “trash cover” of Berrocal’s
residence. Christoffersen found in Berrocal’s trash container numerous items
consistent with the manufacturing of methamphetamine, including empty “Mini-
Thin” bottles, PH test strips, isopropyl alcohol, over 500 matchbooks with their
strikers removed, “Red Devil” lye, “Heat” methyl alcohol, coffee filters with
binders, latex gloves, and disposable masks.
Christoffersen prepared a proposed warrant to search Berrocal’s residence.
The warrant authorized a no-knock, nighttime search of Berrocal’s residence to
search for methamphetamine and items used in the production and distribution of
methamphetamine. Christoffersen presented the proposed warrant to a Utah state
judge in the early morning hours of April 21, 1998. The state judge issued the
warrant.
-2-
The search warrant was executed by federal DEA Task Force Officers on
the evening of April 21, 1998. Many items associated with the manufacturing and
distribution of methamphetamine were found, including 2.8 grams of
methamphetamine.
Berrocal was charged with one count of attempting to manufacture
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and one count
of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during
the search, arguing, among other things, that the search violated the Fourth
Amendment, federal statutory law, and state statutory law because it was
conducted at night, without prior notice (i.e., no-knock), and without probable
cause. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge for initial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge issued a
report and recommendation rejecting Berrocal’s arguments. The district court
adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denied
Berrocal’s motion to suppress. Berrocal then pleaded guilty to possession of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and, upon
the motion of the government, the court dismissed the charge of attempt to
manufacture methamphetamine. Berrocal retained the right to appeal the decision
of the district court denying his motion to suppress evidence.
-3-
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, this court
considers the totality of the circumstances and views the evidence in a light
favorable to the government. See United States v. Long, 176 F.3d 1304, 1307
(10th Cir.), cert denied, 120 S. Ct. 283 (1999). This court accepts the district
court’s findings of facts unless clearly erroneous. See id. The determination of
whether those facts satisfy the Fourth Amendment and statutory standards for a
no-knock search are questions of law subject to de novo review. See United
States v. Hill, 60 F.3d 672, 681 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Stewart, 867
F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir. 1989). Review of the issuance of a search warrant for
probable cause, however, is more deferential: “[S]o long as the magistrate had a
‘substantial basis for ... conclud[ing]’ that a search would uncover evidence of
wrongdoing, the Fourth Amendment requires no more.” Illinois v. Gates, 462
U.S. 213, 236 (1983) (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271 (1960)).
B. Probable Cause
Berrocal argues that neither the citizen informant nor the “trash cover” was
sufficient to establish probable cause. As the district court correctly noted,
however, Berrocal’s analysis calling for a piece-by-piece evaluation of the
-4-
evidence is at odds with controlling precedent. “The determination of whether
there was a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed must be based
on the totality-of-the-circumstances.” United States v. Glover, 104 F.3d 1570,
1577 (10th Cir. 1997).
In this case probable cause was supported by two factors. First was the
information provided by the citizen informant indicating visitation patterns to
Berrocal’s residence consistent with drug trafficking. It was not clear from the
record whether the citizen informant was anonymous or known. As a general
rule, at least some corroboration is required to support probable cause when the
police receive anonymous information. See J.B. v. Washington County, 127 F.3d
919, 929-30 (10th Cir. 1997). The citizen informant’s information was
corroborated by the “trash cover” conducted by Officer Christoffersen, which
revealed numerous items associated with the manufacturing of methamphetamine.
Berrocal argues that the affidavit submitted by Officer Christoffersen in
support of the warrant does not indicate when the citizen witnessed the suspicious
traffic, and thus does not rule out the possibility that the report was stale. See
United States v. Le, 173 F.3d 1258, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 1999) (considering
whether information supporting probable cause was stale). This argument fails,
however, because of the corroborative effect of the “trash cover.” Similarly, the
-5-
information provided by the informant undermines Berrocal’s argument that the
items found in his trash container were dropped there by someone else.
In light of the deference accorded probable cause determinations by state
magistrates, this court affirms the district court’s conclusion that the totality of
the circumstances provide a substantial basis for the state magistrate’s finding of
probable cause.
C. No-Knock Warrant
Berrocal argues that both the Fourth Amendment and federal statutory law
were violated by the authorization of the no-knock entry. In a federal
prosecution, a search that is “federal in character” must comply with both federal
constitutional standards and federal statutory standards, while a search that is
“state in character” must comply only with federal constitutional standards. See
United States v. Millar, 543 F.2d 1280, 1283-84 (10th Cir. 1976). In this case,
state officials applied to a state judge for a state warrant. Federal officials
conducted the search of Berrocal’s residence, and a federal prosecution followed.
It is not necessary to determine whether the search of Berrocal’s residence was
federal in nature, however, because the same conclusion is reached regardless of
whether federal statutory law applies in addition to the Fourth Amendment.
-6-
In Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), the Supreme Court held that
the common law knock and announce requirement forms a part of the Fourth
Amendment reasonableness inquiry. See id. at 931. The Court explained,
however, that “law enforcement interests may also establish the reasonableness of
an unannounced entry.” Id. at 936. The Court noted that no-knock searches may
be justified when evidence might be destroyed if advance notice was given. See
id.; see also Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 395 (upholding a no-knock
search because the officers had a reasonable suspicion that evidence would be
destroyed if notice was given).
The district court concluded it was reasonable to suspect that evidence
might be destroyed absent a no-knock search based on the material found during
the “trash cover.” Officer Christoffersen explained in his affidavit in support of
the warrant that the material found during the “trash cover” indicated an amount
of methamphetamine located in Berrocal’s residence which could be easily
destroyed or hidden if police officers announced their presence before entering.
Berrocal challenges the district court’s conclusion that it was reasonable to
believe evidence might be destroyed upon notice. Berrocal also argues that he
was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154
(1978), to demonstrate that Officer Christoffersen’s statement in the affidavit
concerning the amount of methamphetamine likely to be found was a deliberate
-7-
falsehood or a reckless disregard for the truth. Berrocal must make a “substantial
preliminary showing” that Christoffersen’s affidavit was false, however, before he
is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See id. at 169-70.
For both of these arguments, Berrocal relies on a statement made by
Christoffersen in the police report after the garbage search. In this report
Christoffersen indicated that the items found were “evidence of a large field
processing taking place at the residence.” Berrocal asserts that a “large field
processing” is not consistent with an amount of methamphetamine that can be
easily destroyed. As the district court noted, however, the police report does not
contradict Christoffersen’s statement in the affidavit that the methamphetamine
could be easily destroyed. Christoffersen states in his affidavit that there were
numerous materials found during the “trash cover,” but also explains that these
materials would produce only a small amount of methamphetamine. We agree
with the district court that Christoffersen’s statements are easily reconciled.
Because Berrocal failed to make a preliminary showing that Christoffersen’s
statements were false, he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. In light of
the items found during the “trash cover,” it was reasonable to conclude that
evidence might be destroyed if notice was given. Therefore, the no-knock search
complied with the Fourth Amendment.
The no-knock search also complies with 18 U.S.C. § 3109, which provides:
-8-
The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a
house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search
warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused
admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in
the execution of the warrant.
The Supreme Court has stated that 18 U.S.C. § 3109, like the Fourth Amendment,
adopts the common law rule regarding no-knock entries. See Sabbath v. United
States, 391 U.S. 585, 591 n.8 (1968). This court has recognized the correlation
between the § 3109 and the Fourth Amendment knock and announce standards.
See United States v. Smith, 63 F.3d 956, 962 (10th Cir. 1995), rev’d on other
grounds, 516 U.S. 1105 (1996); United States v. Ruminer, 786 F.2d 381, 383
(10th Cir. 1986).
As with the Fourth Amendment knock and announce requirement,
compliance with § 3109 may be excused when the officers have an objectively
reasonable belief that exigent circumstances exist. See United States v. Knapp, 1
F.3d 1026, 1030 (10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Stewart, 867 F.2d 581, 584
(10th Cir. 1989). Exigent circumstances exist when there is a “likelihood that
notice would result in the destruction of evidence.” United States v. Dahlman, 13
F.3d 1391, 1398 (10th Cir. 1993). As discussed above, it was reasonable to
believe that Berrocal could easily destroy or hide the amount of evidence believed
to be in his residence. Thus, exigent circumstances existed and the search
complied with § 3109.
-9-
D. Nighttime search
Finally, Berrocal argues that the nighttime search was invalid under Utah
Code Ann. § 77-23-205. It is well established, however, that in a federal
prosecution state law cannot serve as a basis for the suppression of evidence. See
On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 754-55 (1952); United States v. Mitchell,
783 F.2d 971, 973 (10th Cir. 1986). Berrocal’s claim must therefore be rejected. 1
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this court affirms the district court’s denial
of Berrocal’s motion to suppress.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
1
The case of Mason v. United States, 719 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir. 1983), does
not require an examination of state law in this case. While it is true that the
Mason court considered the validity of a search involved in a federal prosecution
by reference to Wyoming law, both the government and the defendant conceded
that Wyoming law governed. See id. at 1489.
-10-