United States v. Ramon Contreras Rodriguez

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
No. 07-14853
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00256-CR-W-E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMON CONTRERAS RODRIGUEZ,
a.k.a. Ricardo Mendoza Lira,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(September 10, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ramon Contreras Rodriguez (Contreras) appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his home. He
contends the affidavit supporting the warrant used in the search failed to establish
probable cause linking his residence to illegal activity, or a fair probability that
evidence of a crime would be found there.
“A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question
of law and fact.” United States v. Zapata, 180 F.3d 1237, 1240 (11th Cir. 1999).
We accept the district court’s findings of fact to be true, unless shown to be clearly
erroneous, and review de novo the district court’s application of the law to those
facts. Id. “[A]ll facts are construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party below.” United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000).
“The individual challenging the search bears the burdens of proof and persuasion.”
United States v. Cooper, 133 F.3d 1394, 1398 (11th Cir. 1998).
The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and
seizures, and mandates that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. In order to establish
probable cause, the affidavit supporting a search warrant must “state facts
sufficient to justify a conclusion that evidence or contraband will probably be
found at the premises to be searched.” United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308,
2
1314 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotations and citation omitted). More specifically, “the
affidavit should establish a connection between the defendant and the residence to
be searched and a link between the residence and any criminal activity.” Id.Under the exclusionary rule, “[e]vidence seized as the result of an illegal search
may not be used by the government in a subsequent criminal prosecution.” Id. at
1312. However, the Supreme Court created a good faith exception to this rule,
stating courts should generally not find evidence inadmissible when it is obtained
by officers acting in reasonable reliance upon a search warrant later found to be
unsupported by probable cause. United States v. Leon, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3420
(1984).
We review de novo whether the Leon good faith exception to the
exclusionary rule applies to a search, adhering to the underlying facts upon which
that determination is based unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v.
Robinson, 336 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003). The exception applies in all but
four sets of circumstances, two of which are relevant in this case: “where the
affidavit supporting the warrant is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to
render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; and . . . where,
depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant is so facially
deficient–i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or things to be
3
seized–that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.”
Martin, 297 F.3d at 1313 (quotations and citation omitted). Under the Leon good
faith exception, suppression is required “only if the officers were dishonest or
reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively
reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.” Id. (quotations and citation
omitted).
Upon review of the record and after considering the parties’ briefs, we find
no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Contreras’s motion to suppress.
We conclude the affidavit underlying the search warrant was not sufficient to
establish probable cause linking Contreras’s residence to illegal activity or to
evidence sought in the warrant. However, the officers executing the warrant could
have reasonably believed it was supported by probable cause, so the Leon good
faith exception applies and the evidence was therefore admissible.
The warrant allowed a search of Octavio Trejo Patino’s and Ronda Baird’s
property for documentary and other evidence related to their alleged harboring and
employment of illegal aliens. The affidavit supporting the warrant provided
evidence that Patino and Baird owned property that included the residences of
Contreras and others. It also indicated their business had made payments to
individuals suspected of being illegal aliens, and some residents on Patino’s and
4
Baird’s property were in the country illegally. To establish probable cause to
search Contreras’s residence, however, the affidavit needed to link the residence to
Patino’s and Baird’s alleged crimes or show a fair probability that evidence of
criminal activity would be found there.
While the affidavit indicated some illegal aliens were living on the property
owned by Patino and Baird, it did not link those illegal aliens to specific
residences on the property, and there was no information whatsoever in the
affidavit establishing illegal aliens resided at Contreras’s residence. Also, the
affidavit indicated identification documents and evidence of payments to illegal
aliens are typically found at the residence or business of those involved in these
activities or those of their close associates. However, nothing in the affidavit
showed Contreras’s residence was used by Patino or Baird as a residence or
business property or that Contreras was a close associate of Patino or Baird.
Indeed, the affidavit lacked any indication that documentary evidence of Patino’s
and Baird’s alleged crimes would likely be found at Contreras’s residence.
Because the warrant affidavit did not connect Contreras’s residence to the alleged
illegal activities of Patino and Baird and failed to establish Contreras’s residence
would likely house evidence of such activities, the warrant used to search
Contreras’s residence was not supported by probable cause.
5
Though the warrant used to search Contreras’s residence was not supported
by probable cause, the evidence seized from the residence is still admissible under
the Leon good faith exception, since the officers acted in reasonable reliance upon
the warrant. Contreras does not allege any of the information in the warrant
affidavit was factually inaccurate, and there is no evidence that the affiant officer
was reckless or dishonest in preparing the affidavit. While the affidavit may have
lacked the specificity needed to establish a connection between Contreras’s
residence and evidence of the alleged crimes committed by Patino and Baird, it did
establish that Patino and Baird owned Contreras’s residence and illegal aliens
were residing in at least some of the residences on their property. Officers
executing the warrant could have reasonably believed the presence of illegal aliens
at nearby residences owned by Patino and Baird was sufficient to establish
probable cause to search Contreras’s residence. Because the affidavit contained at
least some information suggesting evidence might be found at Contreras’s
residence, the executing officers could have reasonably believed the warrant was
supported by probable cause. Thus, the district court did not err in admitting the
evidence found during the search of Contreras’s residence.
AFFIRMED.
6