eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2006-05

United States v. Crowffey , 182 F. App'x 249 ( 2006 )


Menu:
 
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4251
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VERNON EDWARD CROWFFEY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR-
04-372)
Submitted:   April 26, 2006                   Decided:   May 26, 2006
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public       Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,   for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Debra     L. Dwyer, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,   for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vernon   Edward   Crowffey,     Jr.    appeals    his   conviction
following   his   guilty   plea   for   possession    of     ammunition   by   a
convicted felon, in violation of
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1) (2000).
Crowffey reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial
of his motion to suppress.        Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying a
motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court's legal
determinations de novo.       See Ornelas v. United States,
    517 U.S. 690
    , 699 (1996).     When a suppression motion has been denied, this
court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government.    See United States v. Seidman,
    156 F.3d 542
    , 547 (4th
Cir. 1998).
Crowffey asserts the affidavit underlying the search of
his home failed to establish probable cause.           The search warrant,
which was issued on July 16, 2004, was based on his purchase of
ammunition fifty-four days earlier, on May 24, 2004.                  Crowffey
contends it was not reasonable to conclude, based on evidence of a
single purchase of ammunition nearly two months earlier, that it
was   likely   the   police   would     find   a   firearm     matching   that
ammunition, or the ammunition itself, in the residence of the
person who made the alleged purchase.
“The vitality of probable cause cannot be quantified by
simply counting the number of days between the occurrence of the
- 2 -
facts supplied and the issuance of the affidavit.”                  United States
v. McCall,
    740 F.2d 1331
    , 1336 (4th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted).
Rather,     the     court     must     examine      all    relevant    facts    and
circumstances, including “the nature of the unlawful activity
alleged, the length of the activity, and the nature of the property
to be seized.”
    Id.
     (citation omitted).
Here, the affidavit also detailed Crowffey’s extensive
criminal history. Moreover, the nature of the property sought also
supported    a    finding     of    probable    cause.      The    search   warrant
authorized       task    force     officers    to   look   for    books,    records,
receipts, notes and any other papers pertaining to the purchase or
possession of firearms and ammunition; firearms and ammunition;
and/or firearms and ammunition-related paraphernalia.                  Findings of
staleness become less appropriate when the instrumentalities of the
alleged illegality tend to be retained.                    See United States v.
Farmer,
    370 F.3d 435
    , 439-40 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
    543 U.S. 1022
     (2004). In light of Crowffey’s extensive criminal history, it
was reasonable to assume that, even if the ammunition had been used
or given away, the firearm for which the ammunition was purchased
remained in Crowffey’s home.            See United States v. Anderson,
    851 F.2d 727
    , 729 (4th Cir. 1988) (reasonable to assume individuals
keep weapons in their homes).
Even if the warrant was defective, we conclude the
evidence obtained was nevertheless admissible under the good faith
- 3 -
exception to the exclusionary rule. See United States v. Leon,
    468 U.S. 897
    , 922-23 (1984).      We therefore find the district court
correctly   denied    Crowffey’s    motion   to   suppress   and    affirm
Crowffey’s conviction and sentence. 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 -