Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; April 8, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached to the citing document or furnished to the Court and parties during oral argument, as per a General Order from November 29, 1993. In the case of United States v. Edward Michael Cody, No. 93-1154, the Tenth Circuit upheld the denial of Cody's motion to suppress evidence obtained from searches of his home and auto repair business. Cody entered a conditional guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a public school. On appeal, he argued the search warrant lacked probable cause due to inadequacies in the affidavit, particularly regarding the reliability of informants Kevin Thompson and James Willingham. Although the district court struck portions of the affidavit deemed false, it still found sufficient probable cause to search Cody's business. Cody contended that the informants provided unreliable information for personal gain and alleged omissions of their criminal histories from the affidavit were material to evaluating their credibility. The court ultimately affirmed the decision, stating the affidavit contained enough facts to establish probable cause despite the redactions.
Denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed by accepting the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous, while the ultimate reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo. If a defendant demonstrates that an affiant intentionally or recklessly included false statements in a warrant affidavit, the warrant is void unless other parts of the affidavit establish probable cause. Omission of information that would negate probable cause also constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation. The standard for determining probable cause is the totality of the circumstances, requiring a magistrate to make a practical decision based on the affidavit's details, including the credibility of hearsay sources. Conclusory statements alone cannot establish probable cause, and a reviewing court must find a substantial basis for the magistrate's determination.
The affidavit in question includes multiple details indicating Mr. Cody's involvement in methamphetamine trafficking, such as:
1) Mr. Thompson's purchase of methamphetamine from Mr. Cody in April 1990.
2) Information from Christopher Emmel about Mr. Cody organizing shipments of methamphetamine from California and Nevada.
3) Multiple purchases of methamphetamine by a cooperating individual from Mr. Emmel.
4) An anonymous tip regarding Mr. Cody's purchases of methamphetamine in San Diego.
5) Mr. Cody's own admissions about sourcing methamphetamine in California.
6) Identifications of drug storage locations associated with Mr. Cody.
7) Canine detection of narcotics in storage units linked to Mr. Cody.
8) Reports from the local high school concerning students obtaining drugs from Mr. Cody's auto repair business.
9) Additional anonymous calls reporting drug activity and sales by Mr. Cody.
10) Evidence from Mr. Thompson regarding Mr. Cody's consistent supply and packaging of methamphetamine.
The revised affidavit establishes probable cause to believe that Valley Auto contained evidence of a crime, specifically related to methamphetamine dealing linked to Mr. Cody. While the affidavit does not assess the reliability of informants Mr. Thompson and Mr. Willingham, their claims are substantiated by corroborating information from additional sources. The affidavit includes details about Mr. Cody's drug activities, the presence of methamphetamine at Valley Auto, and the connection of drugs to storage units. The district court determined that the totality of the evidence justified the search warrant for Valley Auto and found no need for further revisions to the affidavit. The criminal histories of the informants and any benefits they received for their information do not undermine the credibility of their corroborated statements. The court also rejected the defendant's claims of omitted or false statements as exaggerated compared to the evidence presented during the Franks hearing. Consequently, the court properly denied the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. The district court's judgment is affirmed, and the order is not binding precedent, except under specific legal doctrines. The police did not recover incriminating evidence from the storage units. The affidavit mentioned Mr. Thompson's plea deal for a drug offense, which the defendant argues undermines his reliability. Additionally, a section of the affidavit regarding an individual transporting methamphetamine was struck, but it remains uncertain whether related introductory information was also excluded. There was no supporting testimony during the hearing to substantiate claims about Mr. Willingham’s involvement with the methamphetamine.
