United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 12, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
_____________________
No. 05-60955
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
JAMES LEON OWENS, Jr.
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Mississippi
(USDC No. 3:05-CR-28-ALL)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*1
In an appeal involving a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review
the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 526 (5th Cir. 2004). Review of a district court’s
denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant is limited to 1)
whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, and 2) whether the
warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 435 (5th
Cir. 1996). We affirm for the following reasons:
1. Owens’ core argument is that the affidavits supporting the search warrant
qualify as bare-bones because they were based on insufficient and unreliable
information “from a confidential informant.” This argument fails because 1)
Owens ignores the fact that Justus’ identity was not confidential; to the
contrary, her name is used repeatedly on the statement of “Underlying Facts
and Circumstances” and 2) the reliability of an informant who is identified
as a victim-witness to a crime, rather than a professional informant, need not
be established in the officer’s affidavit. United States v. Payne, 341 F.3d
393, 401 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Bell, 457 F.2d 1231, 1238
(5th Cir. 1972)).
2. In their statement of “Underlying Facts and Circumstances,” the affiant
police officers explained in detail as to how Justus came to be in Owens’
apartment and what she saw therein. Accordingly, the affidavits were in no
sense bare-bones and the good-faith exception applies.
AFFIRMED.
2