UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND HERSMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00002-1)
Submitted: August 29, 2014 Decided: September 9, 2014
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas J. Gillooly, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Monica D. Coleman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Hersman was convicted by a jury of possession
with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and he
was sentenced to a 240-month imprisonment term. On appeal,
Hersman argues that the district court erred by failing to
suppress evidence obtained via a search warrant that he claims
is constitutionally defective. The district court held that,
even if the warrant is defective, the good-faith exception to
the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468
U.S. 897 (1984), applies. We affirm.
When considering the denial of a suppression motion,
we review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions, and we
review its factual findings for clear error. United States v.
Guijon-Ortiz, 660 F.3d 757, 762 (4th Cir. 2011). Because the
Government prevailed on the suppression issue below, we construe
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government.
United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 320 (4th Cir. 2004).
We proceed directly to Hersman’s challenge to the
district court’s application of the good-faith exception. See
United States v. Andrews, 577 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 2009)
(addressing challenge to district court’s application of good-
faith exception without first considering validity of search
warrant). When an officer acts with objective good faith within
2
the scope of a search warrant issued by a magistrate,
suppression of the evidence obtained by the officer does not
serve the exclusionary rule’s deterrence objective because the
officer has attempted to comply with the law. United States v.
Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 461 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, evidence
obtained pursuant to a search warrant should not be suppressed
unless, among other circumstances not relevant here, the warrant
is so facially deficient that the executing officers cannot
reasonably presume it to be valid. Id.
Applying the foregoing standards to the facts of this
case, we hold that the district court did not err by finding the
good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule to be applicable.
The officers in this case could have reasonably presumed that
the warrant is valid and, therefore, any possible constitutional
defects in the warrant do not require exclusion of the fruits of
their search.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3