United States v. Malveaux ( 2003 )

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 United States v. Malveaux No. 02-5382
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0411P (6th Cir.)File Name: 03a0411p.06 Tennessee, for Appellee. Elizabeth T. Ryan, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for
Intervenor. ON BRIEF: Barry L. Abbott, CAVETT &
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ABBOTT, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Steven S.
Neff, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee. Elizabeth T. Ryan,
_________________ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville,
Tennessee, for Intervenor.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , X
Plaintiff-Appellee, - _________________
-
- No. 02-5382 OPINION
v. - _________________
>
, SILER, Circuit Judge. Defendant Albert Vincent
ALBERT VINCENT -
MALVEAUX, a/k/a VINNY THE - Malveaux, a/k/a Vinny the Shark, appeals from the denial of
his motion to suppress two ounces of cocaine base (“crack”),
SHARK , - a handgun, and a large amount of cash found in his hotel
Defendant-Appellant. - room. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.
-
N BACKGROUND
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Between January and March 2001, a confidential informant
No. 01-00083—R. Allan Edgar, Chief District Judge. made five cocaine purchases from Malveaux. These
“controlled buys” were monitored by police officers. On
Argued: September 18, 2003 April 30, 2001, a confidential informant notified Chattanooga
Police Department Detective Randy Noorbergen that, within
Decided and Filed: November 21, 2003 the previous 72 hours, the informant had been in Malveaux’s
hotel room at the Main Stay Suites in Chattanooga, Hamilton
Before: SILER, BATCHELDER, and COOK, Circuit County, Tennessee. The informant told Detective
Judges. Noorbergen that Malveaux possessed four ounces of crack, a
pistol, and a large amount of cash. Detective Noorbergen
_________________ knew this informant, whom he had known for approximately
one year, to be reliable. In addition, Detective Noorbergen
COUNSEL had received information from another Chattanooga narcotics
detective that Malveaux had recently been involved in
ARGUED: Barry L. Abbott, CAVETT & ABBOTT, “heavy” drug trafficking.
Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Paul W. Laymon, Jr.,
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Chattanooga,
1
No. 02-5382 United States v. Malveaux 3 4 United States v. Malveaux No. 02-5382
Armed with this information, Detective Noorbergen took investigation of Tennessee constitutional law was
his materials to Judicial Commissioner Robert Meeks, who unnecessary because the exclusionary rule does not exclude
was on duty that evening. Hamilton County judicial evidence under circumstances such as these, specifically
commissioners are on duty during the evening hours when remarking that the officers’ good faith reliance on
state judges are usually unavailable. As a common practice, Commissioner Meeks’s search warrant was objectively
Chattanooga law enforcement officers normally obtain reasonable. Moreover, the district court recognized that a
warrants from these judicial commissioners, rather than strong presumption exists that an act promulgated by the
awaking state judges during late hours. At 10:09 p.m. on legislature is constitutional. Consequently, it denied
April 30, 2001, Detective Noorbergen appeared before Malveaux’s motion to suppress.
Commissioner Meeks, who issued a search warrant for
Malveaux’s hotel room. Malveaux entered a conditional guilty plea to both counts
of the indictment but reserved his right to appeal the district
After obtaining the warrant, Detective Noorbergen and court’s denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to
additional law enforcement officers rented a room at the Main 117 months’ imprisonment.
Stay Suites and commenced surveillance of Malveaux’s
room. During their surveillance, the police officers observed DISCUSSION
an individual arrive at, enter, and then exit Malveaux’s room.
The officers learned that the individual had just purchased “We review for clear error the district court’s findings of
cocaine from Malveaux. Pursuant to the officers’ insistence, fact made with regard to a motion to suppress; we review de
the individual knocked on the door of Malveaux’s room. novo the court’s legal conclusions.” United States v. Elmore,
When Malveaux opened the door, the officers entered the 304 F.3d 557, 560 (6th Cir. 2002), citing United States v. Ivy,
room and executed the warrant. Once inside, the officers 165 F.3d 397, 401-02 (6th Cir. 1998).
discovered approximately two ounces of crack, a loaded
handgun, and a large amount of cash. A fundamental tenet of the Fourth Amendment is protection
from unreasonable searches and seizures. Knox County Educ.
Malveaux was later indicted on two counts, charging him Ass’n v. Knox County Bd. of Educ., 158 F.3d 361, 371 (6th
with possession of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Cir. 1998). “As a general rule, in order to be reasonable, a
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and possession of a handgun in search must be undertaken pursuant to a warrant issued upon
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 a showing of probable cause.” Id. at 373, citing Skinner v.
U.S.C. § 924(c). Malveaux moved to suppress the evidence, Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 619 (1989).
contending that the search warrant was invalid because
Commissioner Meeks was not authorized to issue search Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-111 permits the appointment of
warrants. Malveaux alleged that because Section 3, Chapter judicial commissioners in counties with certain populations.
192 of the 1996 Private Acts (“Chapter 192 § 3”) conflicted Chapter 192 § 3, enacted after Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-111,
with and was irreconcilable with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1- permits the Hamilton County legislative body to appoint
111, it was violative of Article XI, section 8 of the Tennessee judicial commissioners despite the fact that Hamilton
Constitution and thus unconstitutional. Although the district County’s population does not fit within the delineated
court touched upon the interpretation of each of the population brackets of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-111. Since
aforementioned sections, it found that a comprehensive Hamilton County’s population does not fall within the
No. 02-5382 United States v. Malveaux 5 6 United States v. Malveaux No. 02-5382
statutorily-prescribed parameters of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1- Although not directly on point, United States v.
111, Malveaux contends that Commissioner Meeks was Pennington, 328 F.3d 215, 217 (6th Cir. 2003), provides
unauthorized to issue the search warrant.1 This contention substantial assistance to our disposition of Malveaux’s claim.
notwithstanding, no analysis of Tennessee law is necessary, In Pennington, a Shelby County, Tennessee Judicial
as the district court properly denied Malveaux’s motion to Commissioner issued a warrant to search the defendant’s
suppress. Accordingly, we affirm without comment as to any home. In moving to suppress evidence seized from his
alleged conflict between Chapter 192 § 3 and Tenn. Code residence, Pennington alleged that the commissioner was not
Ann. § 40-1-111. neutral and detached because he was appointed by a local
legislative authority. Pennington also claimed that the
In support of his argument that Commissioner Meeks was commissioner was prohibited from issuing search warrants or
never authorized to issue the search warrant, Malveaux relies acting as a neutral and detached magistrate for Fourth
upon United States v. Scott, 260 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001). In Amendment purposes because he was neither a judge nor an
Scott, a deputy sheriff obtained a search warrant from a attorney. Premised upon Leon, the district court properly
retired judge of the General Sessions Court for Sequatchie denied Pennington’s motion to suppress because the police
County, Tennessee. The deputy sheriff chose to present the “officers relied in good faith on the warrant issued by the
search warrant to a retired judge instead of an active judge judicial commissioner.” Id. at 217.
whom he knew to be at home. In concluding that the district
court erroneously denied Scott’s motion to suppress, this This rationale is applicable to Malveaux’s argument.
court observed that the deputy sheriff did not “rel[y] on a Commissioner Meeks issued the search warrant under
warrant that contained a mere technical deficiency[;]” rather, Tennessee law. Id. at 217. As Commissioner Meeks was
the retired judge “possessed no legal authority pursuant to legally appointed under Tennessee law, he had the apparent
which he could issue a valid warrant.” Id. at 515. The Scott authority to issue the warrant to search Malveaux’s hotel
court held “that when a warrant is signed by someone who room. Pursuant to both Pennington and Leon, the police
lacks the legal authority necessary to issue search warrants, officers, acting in good faith, relied upon Commissioner
the warrant is void ab initio.” Id. at 515. Meeks’s apparent authority to issue the search warrant.
Malveaux’s reliance upon Scott is misplaced. Unlike the AFFIRMED.
retired judge in Scott, Commissioner Meeks was authorized
to issue search warrants. The police officers properly
obtained the search warrant because, premised upon their
objective good faith, they had no reason to question whether
Commissioner Meeks possessed the authority to issue the
search warrant. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922
(1984).
1
Malveaux does not allege that the search warrant was invalid for any
other reason.