United States v. Conley

Citations: 4 F.3d 1200; 1993 WL 349978Docket: No. 93-3095

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; September 16, 1993; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The district court suppressed evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at 930 Saw Mill Run Boulevard, concluding that the warrant lacked probable cause. The United States appealed this decision, arguing that the district court applied a too restrictive interpretation of probable cause. On September 23, 1988, Detective John Bosetti, investigating illegal gambling involving video poker machines, provided an affidavit to obtain the search warrant. The affidavit detailed an investigation that included visits to over fifty gambling locations, where detectives observed cash payoffs from video poker machines. 

Notably, 42 of these locations were linked to Duffy’s Vending Co., registered at the same address as the targeted search. Bosetti reported observing a truck associated with Duffy’s Vending transporting suspected video devices and had verified the company’s contact information. Additionally, John Duffy Conley, the owner of Duffy’s Vending, had a prior conviction for gambling-related offenses. The affidavit concluded that the search warrant was necessary to investigate the gambling operation further. The court found that the affidavit provided sufficient basis for probable cause, leading to the decision to reverse the suppression order.

The magistrate authorized a search warrant for 930 Saw Mill Run Blvd. based on an affidavit that established probable cause. The warrant permitted the seizure of video poker machines, related keys, accounting and revenue records, employee records, purchase orders, location records, and gambling paraphernalia. The search on September 23, 1988, resulted in the seizure of various documents related to Duffy Vending Company, including canceled checks, personnel records, notes, and sales receipts. Following the investigation, a federal grand jury indicted John F. 'Duffy' Conley, John F. 'Jack' Conley, Sheila F. Smith, and others for illegal gambling and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1955. The defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained, and the district court granted this motion, deeming the affidavit insufficient to support probable cause. The government is appealing this suppression order. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and reviews probable cause determinations with a focus on the affidavit's written evidence, exercising plenary review due to the district court's conclusion that the affidavit did not substantiate probable cause. While the district court's review of the magistrate's probable cause determination is deferential, the appellate court independently assesses the affidavit's sufficiency without being confined to the district court’s findings.

A magistrate's finding of probable cause is afforded significant deference by reviewing courts, which must verify that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed. Reviewing courts are not permitted to conduct a de novo review but must uphold a warrant if the magistrate's determination aligns with the minimal substantial basis standard. Even if a reviewing court would not have found probable cause, it must defer to the magistrate's decision if the affidavit provides sufficient basis for it. The standard does not imply that reviewing courts should merely accept magistrate conclusions without scrutiny; however, their role remains limited. In uncertain or marginal cases, the preference should be to uphold warrants.

An affidavit must be read in its entirety and in a common-sense manner. In this instance, Detective Bosetti's affidavit presented sufficient facts indicating probable cause to search the premises, detailing that detectives engaged in illegal activities involving video poker machines across multiple locations, received illicit cash pay-offs, and identified Duffy’s Vending Co. as the owner of the machines linked to these illegal transactions. The affidavit also noted that the machines required publicly available permits, which were traced to Duffy’s Vending Co. at a specific address.

John 'Duffy' Conley is the owner of Duffy’s Vending Co., which is implicated in illegal gambling activities involving video poker machines. On March 16, 1988, Conley was convicted under Pennsylvania law for similar illegal pay-offs related to these machines. The affidavit supporting a search warrant for 930 Sawmill Run Blvd. established probable cause based on the connection between the illegal use of the machines and Conley's ownership. Under Pennsylvania law, video poker machines are not inherently illegal unless equipped with a 'knock down' button, yet they were still being used unlawfully. Detectives reported receiving cash pay-offs from the machines, with 42 out of 49 locations involved linked to Duffy Vending Co. It is illegal to lease or sell machines with knowledge of their use for gambling, thus implicating Conley in the operations.

The search warrant was focused on gathering evidence of illegal gambling rather than arresting Conley. The affidavit did not need to present direct evidence of wrongdoing at the premises to justify the search; probable cause can be inferred from the nature of the crime and the context provided. The connection between illegal activities and the address was substantiated by official permits listing the location as the owner’s address. Overall, the warrant was appropriately issued based on the accumulated evidence suggesting that the premises could contain further evidence of illegal gambling activities.

The affidavit supporting probable cause includes critical information about John 'Duffy' Conley, who was convicted in 1988 for violating a Pennsylvania gambling statute through illegal pay-offs using machines. The use of prior arrests and convictions to establish probable cause is permissible and often beneficial, especially when the prior crime is similar to the crime under investigation. Although defendants argue that Detective Bosetti’s statement requesting a search warrant for insight into the gambling operation suggests a lack of probable cause, affidavits should be evaluated based on their overall content rather than isolated statements. The courts recognize that affidavits may contain flaws and that non-lawyers often draft them under pressure. The district court incorrectly focused on omitted information rather than the substantive facts presented in the affidavit. The valid determination of probable cause should rely on whether the facts provided a substantial basis for believing evidence of wrongdoing would be found. Regarding the warrant's alleged overbreadth, defendants argue that the use of "all" in "all revenue records" makes it a general warrant, which is prohibited under the Fourth Amendment. However, the mere use of "all" does not automatically render a warrant general, and warrant language must be interpreted in context.

The search warrant permits the seizure of items linked to an illegal gambling operation, meeting the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement due to its specificity. Prior case law, including Johnson, supports upholding warrants that authorize the seizure of instrumentalities associated with illegal gambling, acknowledging the inherent difficulties in achieving precise identification of such items in the context of ongoing illegal activities. While some innocuous documents may be briefly reviewed during the search, the Fourth Amendment does not demand surgical precision in execution. The defendants' challenge regarding the warrant's overbreadth is deemed without merit. The district court's order suppressing the search is reversed. The reviewing court's role is to ensure that the magistrate had ample basis for establishing probable cause, which requires only a "substantial basis" for believing that evidence may be found. This standard is described as deferential, akin to a clearly erroneous standard in some appellate interpretations. Relevant Pennsylvania law defines various offenses related to illegal gambling, including maintaining gambling devices and allowing unlawful gambling activities. A valid warrant can still be supported by the remaining content of an affidavit, even if it contains misrepresentations or omissions, provided that the remaining information establishes probable cause. The district court did not address the overbreadth issue as it found no probable cause; however, this review concludes that probable cause was present, negating the need to assess the officers' good faith in relying on the warrant.