United States v. Phillip Craig ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-4344
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    PHILLIP EDWARD CRAIG,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Huntington.  Robert C. Chambers,
    District Judge. (3:11-cr-00181-1)
    Submitted:   October 5, 2012                 Decided:   November 26, 2012
    Before AGEE, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellant.    R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
    Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Phillip     Edward     Craig       entered      a    conditional           guilty
    plea, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), to possession with intent
    to    distribute         cocaine     base,        in    violation         of        
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2006).             Craig’s plea preserved his right to appeal
    the   district      court’s        order    denying        his     motion       to       suppress
    evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant of his apartment.
    On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in denying
    his motion to suppress.            We affirm.
    Craig claims in this court that the search warrant was
    invalid    because       the    supporting        affidavit        failed      to     establish
    probable       cause     that     drugs     were       stored      at     his        residence.
    Specifically,          Craig     asserts      that       there       was        insufficient
    corroboration of information provided by the anonymous informant
    and    that      Craig’s        roommate’s        statement        concerning             Craig’s
    possession of drugs was too unreliable to establish probable
    cause.     Craig also contends that the fact that officers followed
    him   to   a    high     drug    trafficking        area    was     not     sufficient         to
    justify probable cause.             Finally, Craig notes that, although the
    affidavit mentioned that a drug dog gave a positive indication
    for drugs, it failed to acknowledge that no drugs were found
    pursuant to the search of the vehicle.
    Craig,    however,     did     not      raise     these     claims         in   the
    motion to suppress he filed in the district court.                              Accordingly,
    2
    we conclude that his new claims are waived.                  See Fed. R. Crim.
    P. 12(b)(3), (e); United States v. Ricco, 
    52 F.3d 58
    , 62 (4th
    Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Green, 
    691 F.3d 960
    , 963-
    64 (8th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he waiver provision of Rule 12 precludes
    appellate review of arguments to suppress evidence that are not
    raised in a pretrial motion to suppress.”); United States v.
    Lockett, 
    406 F.3d 207
    , 212 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[I]n the context of
    a    motion     to    suppress,      a    defendant      must   have      advanced
    substantially the same theories of suppression in the district
    court as he . . . seeks to rely upon in this [c]ourt.”).
    Even   if   Craig   had    not   waived   these   new    claims,   we
    conclude that the district court did not plainly err in denying
    his motion to suppress.           See United States v. Servance, 
    394 F.3d 222
    , 231 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review), vacated
    on other grounds, 
    544 U.S. 1047
     (2005); see also United States
    v.   Olano,    
    507 U.S. 725
    ,   732       (1993)   (detailing     plain   error
    standard).      When considering the denial of a motion to suppress,
    we review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions, while
    its factual findings are reviewed for clear error.                     See Ornelas
    v. United States, 
    517 U.S. 690
    , 699 (1996); United States v.
    Guijon-Ortiz, 
    660 F.3d 757
    , 762 (4th Cir. 2011).                      The evidence
    is construed in the light most favorable to the Government, the
    prevailing party below.           United States v. Perkins, 
    363 F.3d 317
    ,
    320 (4th Cir. 2004).
    3
    To    comport      with    the    Fourth   Amendment,     a     magistrate
    issuing a search warrant must find probable cause based on “a
    practical,     common-sense         decision      whether,     given       all   the
    circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . , there is a fair
    probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found
    in a particular place.”             Illinois v. Gates, 
    462 U.S. 213
    , 238
    (1983).      “[I]n   reviewing        the      sufficiency    of    a    supporting
    affidavit, we avoid applying hypertechnical scrutiny,” instead
    granting great deference to the issuing magistrate.                        Owens ex
    rel. Owens v. Lott, 
    372 F.3d 267
    , 274 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal
    quotation marks omitted); see Gates, 
    462 U.S. at 236
    .                       We must
    determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the
    issuing judge had a substantial basis for finding probable cause
    to issue the warrant.         Gates, 
    462 U.S. at 238-39
    ; United States
    v. Allen, 
    631 F.3d 164
    , 172 (4th Cir. 2011).                   We conclude that
    the supporting affidavit provided a substantial basis for the
    magistrate’s finding of probable cause because it described an
    anonymous tip corroborated by independent police investigation
    indicating   that    Craig    was    a     drug   dealer,    and   it    included   a
    statement by Craig’s roommate to the police that Craig probably
    had marijuana in his room.
    Craig’s      argument            that    there     was        insufficient
    corroboration of information provided by the anonymous informant
    is unpersuasive.      Confirmation of even the innocent details of
    4
    an informant’s tip lend credibility to unconfirmed allegations
    of criminal conduct.              See United States v. Lalor, 
    996 F.2d 1578
    ,
    1581       (4th   Cir.      1993).        Here,    the   detectives          confirmed
    particularized information provided by the anonymous informant,
    including the specific address where the drugs were stored and
    the description of particular vehicles.
    Moreover,      the     anonymous    tip   was    corroborated       by
    further       independent     police     investigation   when        the   detectives
    followed Craig to “a high drug trafficking area.” (J.A. 17). ∗
    Although Craig correctly contends that his mere presence in a
    high-crime        neighborhood,        standing    alone,      did     not     justify
    probable cause, see Brown v. Texas, 
    443 U.S. 47
    , 52 (1979), even
    seemingly innocent activity may be deemed suspicious in light of
    an initial tip, such as the anonymous letter here.                         See Gates,
    
    462 U.S. at
    243-44 n.13.                 Further, Craig’s conduct was more
    suspect because the detectives recognized Craig based on a 2006
    drug arrest and had current information linking him to heroin-
    dealing in the area.              We conclude that these factors, taken in
    the        totality    of     the     circumstances,     indicate          sufficient
    corroboration         of    the    information    provided     by    the     anonymous
    informant.
    ∗
    “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties.
    5
    We also reject Craig’s argument that his roommate’s
    statement        concerning   Craig’s       possession    of     drugs     was   too
    unreliable to establish probable cause because there are several
    indicia     of    credibility    in    the    statement.         First,     Craig’s
    roommate    admitted     to   having    a    drug    problem   when     making   the
    statement concerning Craig’s possession of drugs.                        See United
    States v. Harris, 
    403 U.S. 573
    , 583-84 (1971) (finding that, as
    a matter of common sense, “[a]dmissions of crime . . . carry
    their own indicia of credibility”).                 Further, Craig’s roommate
    made the statement in person to the police, which also supports
    its credibility.        See United States v. DeQuasie, 
    373 F.3d 509
    ,
    523 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting that “an informant who meets face-
    to-face with an officer provides the officer with an opportunity
    to assess his credibility and demeanor and also exposes himself
    to accountability for making a false statement”).
    Finally,     Craig    argues     that,    although    the     affidavit
    mentioned that a drug dog gave a positive indication for drugs,
    it failed to acknowledge that no drugs were found pursuant to
    the search of the vehicle.             We conclude that this omission was
    immaterial to the finding of probable cause.                   Thus, the search
    warrant remains valid.          See United States v. Gary, 
    528 F.3d 324
    ,
    328 (4th Cir. 2008).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    6
    legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented    in   the   materials
    before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    7