F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 5 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 97-2367
v. (D.C. No. CR-97-304-LH)
(New Mexico)
RICHARD W. BUTTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
Richard Button pled guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §
924(a)(2) as a convicted felon unlawfully in possession of firearms. He was
sentenced to thirty months imprisonment and two years supervised release. He
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, contending
that the search warrant which led to the discovery of firearms at his home was not
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
supported by probable cause. We affirm.
On May 1, 1997, United States Magistrate Judge Galvan issued a search
warrant for Mr. Button’s residence based on an affidavit DEA Special Agent
James Baker submitted to him. The affidavit described an ongoing drug
trafficking conspiracy dating from 1989, with three drug seizures linked to
Stephen Michael Pollack and those working with Mr. Pollock. Aplt. App.,
doc. 2 at 5-20. In a drug raid related to Mr. Pollock’s alleged conspiracy, the
police found Mr. Button’s phone number next to Mr. Pollock’s in a confiscated
notebook. Id. at 16. The affidavit also indicated that a cooperating source (CS2)
had told agents Mr. Button was a courier of narcotics for Mr. Pollack. Id. at 17.
Among other details, the source stated that Mr. Pollack’s conspiracy involved
drug trafficking in Alamogordo, New Mexico, and Durango, Colorado. Id. at 16.
The affidavit showed police corroborated CS2's information by telephone records
between Mr. Pollock and Mr. Button, agent surveillance of Mr. Button’s car in
Mr. Pollack’s drive, information showing Mr. Button’s residence in Alamogordo,
New Mexico, and Mr. Pollack’s residence in Durango, Colorado, and information
provided by New Mexico state police that they had an informant who also said
Mr. Button was a courier for Mr. Pollack. Id. at 16-17, 20.
Agents executed the warrant at Mr. Button’s residence on May 2, 1997, and
seized a semi-automatic pistol and a rifle. Mr. Button filed a motion to suppress
-2-
evidence seized during the search, asserting the underlying affidavit to the
warrant was defective. The district court denied Mr. Button’s motion. On August
8, 1997, Button entered a conditional plea of guilty and reserved his right to
appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
We review whether a magistrate or judge properly issued a search warrant
by determining whether there was a “substantial basis” for probable cause.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983).
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical
common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth
in the affidavit before him, . . . there is a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the
magistrate had a “substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]” that
probable cause existed.
Id. at 238-39 (citations omitted). In making this determination, we view the
totality of the evidence. United States v. Cusumano, 83 F.3d 1247, 1250 (10th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
While “probable cause does not demand the certainty we associate with
formal trials,” Gates, 462 U.S. at 246, we recognize that a magistrate or judge
must rely on more than a “mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others,” id.
at 239. In particular, an affidavit containing only an informant’s tip would be
unsatisfactory. However, corroborating evidence is one way to cure the
insufficiencies. Id. at 241-42.
-3-
In Gates, for example, the Supreme Court held that a corroborated
anonymous letter was sufficient basis for a search warrant. Police surveillance
showed the reliability of the informant’s predictions on the Gates’ car location in
Florida, Lance Gates’ flight to Florida, and his subsequent drive northward. The
Supreme Court held that the added reliability sufficiently supported the magistrate
judge’s determination of probable cause for a search warrant. Id. at 244.
In the present case, Mr. Button contends that the underlying affidavit was
defective because C2's information was not adequately corroborated, the totality
of the evidence was primarily insufficient hearsay, and the reliance on his former
1989 conviction was stale evidence. We are not persuaded.
. Mr. Button’s case is similar to Gates. Special Agent Baker submitted an
affidavit that contained C2's information and corroborating investigative work.
C2 asserted a link between Mr. Pollack and Mr. Button. In support, the affidavit
described telephone logs between the two and surveillance evidence of Mr.
Button’s car in Mr. Pollack’s drive. C2 alleged that drug activity took place in
Alamogordo, New Mexico, and Durango, Colorado. In corroboration, the
affidavit presented evidence that Mr. Button lived in the first city and visited Mr.
Pollack in the second. The affidavit also noted that Mr. Button’s name and
number were found next to Mr. Pollack’s in a previous drug bust and that another
informant had reported Mr. Button as a drug courier for Mr. Pollack.
-4-
In reviewing the record, we hold that the affidavit provided a range of
sensibly connected evidence beyond bare conclusions and that the totality of the
evidence supports a “substantial basis” for a search warrant.
For the reasons given above, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the
motion to suppress.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Chief Judge
-5-