United States v. Perea ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50754 Document: 00515782242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-50754 March 16, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ernesto Perea,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-636-1
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Following a bench trial, Ernesto Perea was found guilty of possessing
a firearm following a felony conviction, possessing a firearm while using
controlled substances, possessing an unregistered firearm, and
manufacturing a firearm. He received concurrent 36-month sentences. On
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50754 Document: 00515782242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2021
No. 20-50754
appeal, Perea argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress the evidence obtained from a search of his residence.
This court engages in a two-step inquiry when reviewing a district
court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress challenging the sufficiency
of a warrant. See United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 835 (5th Cir. 2010).
First, this court determines whether the good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984),
applies. Id. at 835. If the good-faith exception does not apply, this court
proceeds to the second step and determines whether there was probable
cause justifying issuance of the warrant. Id.
Contrary to Perea’s assertions, the search warrant and affidavit
described the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. See United
States v. Woerner, 709 F.3d 527, 533-34 (5th Cir. 2013). When read in total,
the affidavit reflected that officers should seize stolen property and weapons
that may be related to such property after explaining that Perea had held
stolen tools at his residence and had required payment before returning them
to the rightful owner. The affidavit “would permit an executing officer to
reasonably know what items are to be seized.” United States v. Beaumont,
972 F.2d 553, 560 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). In short, the warrant and
affidavit in this case were not so “facially deficient” that officers could not
reasonably presume that the warrant was valid. Woerner, 709 F.3d at 534.
In addition, the affidavit was not so bare bones as to render belief in
the existence of probable cause entirely unreasonable. See id. at 533-34. To
the contrary, the affidavit provided specific information, based on a report
from the theft victim, that Perea’s stepson had stolen the victim’s truck and
tools, that the stepson had a weapon at the time of his arrest, that Perea was
in possession of the stolen tools and was aware of the location of the missing
truck, and that he required the victim to pay for the return of his personal
2
Case: 20-50754 Document: 00515782242 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2021
No. 20-50754
property. Under the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate who issued
the warrant could reasonably infer that there was probable cause to believe
that additional stolen items could be found at Perea’s home. See United States
v. Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 578 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. May, 819 F.2d 531,
535 (5th Cir. 1987). As the district court did not err by applying the good-
faith exception, we need not go further. See United States v. Mays, 466 F.3d
335, 343 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3