United States v. Barnard

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