United States v. Brown , 234 F. App'x 145 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5152
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAMAREE DONTAE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-01251)
Submitted: July 13, 2007 Decided: July 24, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald L. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, C. Todd Hagins, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shamaree Dontae Brown pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, and a
quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C) (2000). Brown reserved the right to appeal
the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Finding no
error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying a
motion to suppress determination for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United
States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996). When a suppression motion has
been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government. See United States v. Seidman, 156
F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). If a warrant is found to be
defective, the evidence obtained from the defective warrant may
nevertheless be admitted under the good faith exception to the
exclusionary rule. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-23
(1984). Where, as here, the challenge is to both the probable
cause determination and then also to the conclusion that the good
faith exception applies, the court will ordinarily address the good
faith determination first, unless the case involves the resolution
of a novel question of law necessary to provide guidance to police
officers and magistrates. See United States v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240,
- 2 -
243 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 820 (5th
Cir. 1988)
Here, the affidavit supporting the warrant application
was based partly on information provided by a known confidential
informant that had demonstrated his or her reliability by providing
information in the past that had led to arrests on five different
occasions. Moreover, the investigator corroborated this
information by surveilling Brown traveling on numerous occasions
from the residence sought to be searched to another residence known
to be associated with drug activity, by verifying that the
utilities at the residence to be searched were registered in
Brown’s name, and by finding cocaine in the trash outside the
searched premises the day before applying for the warrant.
Accordingly, without reaching the question whether the search
warrant was supported by probable cause, we find the district court
correctly denied Brown’s motion to suppress as there was an ample
basis for applying the good faith exception recognized in Leon.
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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -