United States v. Hongo ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30148 Document: 00516903569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
September 21, 2023
No. 23-30148 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ronnie K. Hongo, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:21-CR-217-1
______________________________
Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Ronnie K. Hongo, Jr.,
conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with the intent
to distribute and using and carrying a firearm in connection with a drug-
trafficking offense. He was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment and a
five-year term of supervised release.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30148 Document: 00516903569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-30148
On appeal, Hongo challenges the denial of the motion to suppress,
urging that the district court erred in applying the good faith exception to the
exclusionary rule. On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we
review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and conclusions of
law de novo. United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir. 2006). We
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party—here,
the Government. Id. And we affirm the district court’s denial of
a suppression motion “if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to
support it.” United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en
banc) (quoting United States v. Register, 931 F.2d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 1991)).
“We employ a two-step process when reviewing a district court’s
denial of a motion to suppress when a search warrant is involved.” United
States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1999). First, we determine
whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Id. “The
good faith exception bars the application of the exclusionary rule to exclude
evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant if law enforcement officers act under
an objectively reasonable, good faith belief that the search warrant in question
is valid—even if it, in fact, is not.” United States v. Jarman, 847 F.3d 259,
264 (5th Cir. 2017). If the good faith exception applies, we affirm the district
court’s denial of the motion to suppress. Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. If it does
not, we continue to the second step, where we “ensure that the magistrate
had a substantial basis for . . . concluding that probable cause existed.” Id.(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d
1120, 1129 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 819 (1997)). The defendant bears
the burden of establishing that the good faith exception does not apply. See
Jarman, 847 F.3d at 264.
Hongo argues that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule
does not apply. He contends that the warrant failed to specify the items to be
searched with the requisite particularity and thus was so facially deficient that
2
Case: 23-30148 Document: 00516903569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-30148
no objectively reasonable officer could rely on it. Hongo says that the
accompanying affidavit did not cure the deficiency because, he says, it was
not physically attached to the warrant at the time of the search and was not
presented to the residents or the officers who performed the search.
Hondo’s arguments are unavailing. Unlike Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S.
551, 557–58 (2004), on which Hongo relies, the search warrant here explicitly
incorporated by reference the accompanying affidavit, which listed the items
sought in the search. And “[i]n reviewing challenges to particularity[,] we
read the warrant as a whole, including its accompanying affidavit and
attachments.” United States v. Aguirre, 664 F.3d 606, 614 (5th Cir. 2011); see
also United States v. Triplett, 684 F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 2012) (“The law
permits an affidavit incorporated by reference to amplify particularity . . . .”);
United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 560 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting the
same). Hongo’s particularity argument thus fails.
Hongo’s argument that the warrant was invalid because the officers
did not give him or his girlfriend the supporting affidavit also fails. In United
States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98–99 (2006), the Supreme Court held the
Fourth Amendment does not require an executing officer to give the property
owner a copy of the warrant or attachments before the search. In light of
Grubbs, there is no “Fourth Amendment right to obtain warrant
attachments.” Schanzle v. Haberman, 831 F. App’x 103, 106 (5th Cir. 2020).
Finally, Hongo’s argument that the executing officers were not shown
the affidavit and did not know what they were searching for is not supported
by the record. At the suppression hearing, Lieutenant Branam, the officer
who prepared the affidavit and warrant, testified that he brought the warrant
and a copy of the affidavit to the scene when he executed the warrant. He also
testified that he was aware of the items that were listed in the affidavit and
could be seized. Likewise, Sergeant Steinke, one of the deputies involved in
3
Case: 23-30148 Document: 00516903569 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-30148
the warrant’s execution, testified that the officers discussed the warrant
during a pre-execution briefing and knew they were looking for
methamphetamine. That Sgt. Steinke could not recall whether the affidavit
was specifically discussed does not demonstrate that the officers were
unaware of the objects of their search. Thus, Hongo’s argument as to the
officers also fails.
Where, as here, probable cause existed, “the affidavit provided
specific information of the objects of the search, [an] executing officer was
the affiant, the additional officers making the search knew what was to be
searched for,” and the warrant referenced the affidavit, “the officer[s’] good
faith reliance upon the warrant was objectively reasonable.” Beaumont, 972
F.2d at 562. Hongo has not shown that the good faith exception does not
apply. See Jarman, 847 F.3d at 264. Accordingly, the district court’s denial
of his motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.
4