United States v. Bailey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID LYNN BAILEY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00306-TDS-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2011 Decided: June 7, 2011
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence
seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant, David Lynn
Bailey pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base. He was sentenced to 180 months in prison. Bailey
now appeals, contending that the district court erroneously
denied the motion to suppress because the affidavit submitted in
support of the search warrant was insufficient to establish
probable cause. We affirm.
Probable cause to issue a search warrant “exist[s]
where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to
warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to
be searched.” United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357, 369
(4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 131
S. Ct. 427 (2010). “[A] judicial officer issuing a search
warrant must simply make a practical, commonsense determination
— based on the totality of the circumstances revealed in the
affidavit — of whether there is a substantial likelihood that
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”
United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164, 173 (4th Cir. 2011).
“When reviewing the probable cause supporting a
warrant, a reviewing court must consider only the information
presented to the magistrate who issued the warrant.” United
2
States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 118 (4th Cir. 1996). The
reviewing court accords great deference to the magistrate’s
determination of probable cause. United States v. Blauvelt, 638
F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2011). In reviewing the validity of a
search warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the
totality of the circumstances, the magistrate had a substantial
basis for concluding that there was probable cause to issue the
warrant. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983).
Bailey contends that the affidavit submitted in
support of his search warrant was comparable to the affidavit in
Wilhelm, where we found that an affidavit did not establish
probable cause. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d at 120-21. In Wilhelm, the
search warrant was premised almost entirely on information
supplied by an anonymous phone caller who never met face-to-face
with the arresting officer. Id.In contrast to the situation in Wilhelm, the informant
in Bailey’s case was an individual who previously had provided
authorities with reliable information that was used in other
cases involving controlled substances. The informant supplied
information about Bailey and his girlfriend which authorities
corroborated prior to seeking the search warrant. Further, the
informant was a past drug user who was familiar with cocaine and
the drug trafficking trade. Within seventy-two hours of the
filing of the affidavit, the informant was in the Bailey
3
residence, where the informant observed quantities of cocaine.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, we
conclude that the affidavit offered in support of the search
warrant established the requisite probable cause. We therefore
affirm. 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
4