United States v. Mason ( 2023 )

Case: 22-51070 Document: 00516869885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-51070
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ August 23, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Avery Andress Mason,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:22-CR-66-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendant-Appellant Avery Andress Mason pleaded guilty to
possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and
was sentenced to 70 months in prison. Mason appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a
search warrant at his home.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51070 Document: 00516869885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2023
No. 22-51070
“When examining a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress,
we review question of law de novo and factual findings for clear error, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” United States
v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767, 779 (5th Cir. 2019). In evaluating whether the police
conducted a constitutionally permissible search, “[f]irst we determine
whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule . . . applies.” United
States v. Payne, 341 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Leon,
468 U.S. 897 (1984). If one or more of the following circumstances is present,
the good-faith exception cannot apply:
(1) If the issuing magistrate/judge was misled by information in an
affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known except
for reckless disregard of the truth; (2) where the issuing
magistrate/judge wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) where
the warrant is based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable
cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;
and (4) where the warrant is so facially deficient in failing to
particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized that
the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.
Id. (quoting United States v. Webster, 960 F.2d 1301, 1307 n.4 (5th Cir. 1992)).
If this exception applies, “we need not reach the question of probable cause
for the warrant unless it presents a novel question of law, resolution of which
is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and
magistrates.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Mason contends that the police officers’ reliance on the warrant falls
under the third of those circumstances and was therefore objectively
unreasonable. Mason asserts that the affidavit in support of the warrant was
deficient because it contains untimely evidence in the form of undated
Instagram posts. Mason also contends that the affidavit fails to demonstrate
the presence of guns in Mason’s home. The government counters that the
“affidavit and accompanying exhibits supplied sufficient facts showing
2
Case: 22-51070 Document: 00516869885 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/23/2023
No. 22-51070
Mason was unlawfully possessing firearms and that those firearms could be
found in his home” and was “therefore not ‘bare bones.’” The government
alternatively states that the state judge had a substantial basis for finding the
existence of probable cause.
In light of all of the evidence, we conclude that the good-faith
exception applies. We therefore need not reach the question of probable
cause. The officers’ belief that Mason was contemporaneously in possession
of illegal firearms was objectively reasonable in light of the number and timing
of the Instagram postings, the appearance in one photo of a new tattoo on
Mason’s face, and the affiant’s conclusion that the guns were the type that
gun owners would likely keep and not sell or transfer. Regarding location, the
officers’ belief that guns would be located inside of Mason’s home was also
objectively reasonable, given that the substantial corroborating evidence
confirms that the location depicted in several photos was Mason’s residence.
AFFIRMED.
3