United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
_________________
No. 01-2762
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY P. BARNARD,
Defendant - Appellee.
_____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge]
_____________________
Before
Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges,
and Schwarzer,* Senior U.S. District Judge
______________________
F. Mark Terison, Assistant U. S. Attorney, and Paula D.
Silsby, United States Attorney, appear on brief for appellant.
Marvin H. Glazier on brief for appellee.
_______________
August 14, 2002
_______________
*
Of the Northern District of California, sitting by
designation.
SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge. Defendant Jeffrey P.
Barnard was charged in a single-count indictment with being a
felon-in-possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress evidence of firearms seized in
a warrant search, contending that the warrant lacked sufficient
information to support a finding of probable cause. The district
court granted the motion on the papers without hearing. United
States v. Barnard, 172 F. Supp. 2d 207 (D. Me. 2001). Following
entry of the suppression order, the government sought
reconsideration, arguing the applicability of the good faith
exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The
court denied the motion, and the government timely appealed. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and now reverse.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2000, Detective John Glidden of the
Millinocket Police Department obtained a warrant to search
defendant's residence in Millinocket, Maine. The supporting
affidavit provided the following information.
Detective Glidden received two reports from other law
enforcement personnel. First, in a conversation on July 27, 2000,
Probation Officer Paul Kelly conveyed information from a “very
reliable” source (“source”) that defendant owns a .22 caliber rifle
and may also have another firearm at his 22 Kelly Lane residence
and that if police went to defendant’s residence there would be a
-2-
shooting. Second, on November 30, 2000, Sergeant Donald Bolduc
passed along information from a confidential informant (“CI”) whom
Bolduc believed to be “reliable” and who was working with the
Millinocket Police Department for no consideration. The CI
reported having seen an SKS assault rifle and a .22 caliber rifle
the last time he was at defendant’s home on November 13 or 14,
2000. The CI stated that defendant had purchased the SKS
approximately four months earlier from Jason Hartley, a resident of
Millinocket. He further stated that defendant had threatened
people, including him, with the SKS and that defendant kept the
weapon beside his bed while he slept. Finally, the CI stated that
defendant was a felon.
The affidavit further stated that on November 30, 2000,
Detective Glidden ran a criminal records check on defendant that
showed four prior convictions for possessing a firearm after being
convicted of a felony, all within five years preceding the search.
Finally, Detective Glidden stated that he had been a
police officer for eleven years during which time he had written
many search warrants and investigated several cases involving
illegal possession of firearms. In his experience, people who own
firearms usually kept them at their residence.
A justice of the peace (“issuing justice”) issued the
search warrant, and police personnel executed it on December 3,
2000. The search apparently yielded three firearms in defendant’s
-3-
possession, including a .22 caliber rifle and an SKS assault rifle.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo the district court’s “ultimate
determination of whether a given set of facts constituted