Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    United States v. Penn, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the conviction of James Dejesus Penn for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Penn's motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, finding that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Penn's request for a Franks hearing, determining that any alleged misrepresentations in the affidavit were not necessary to the finding of probable cause. The court ultimately affirmed Penn's conviction on both counts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Penn, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the conviction of James Dejesus Penn for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Penn's motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, finding that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Penn's request for a Franks hearing, determining that any alleged misrepresentations in the affidavit were not necessary to the finding of probable cause. The court ultimately affirmed Penn's conviction on both counts.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-02-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-4146

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the conviction of James Dejesus Penn for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Penn's motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, finding that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Penn's request for a Franks hearing, determining that any alleged misrepresentations in the affidavit were not necessary to the finding of probable cause. The court ultimately affirmed Penn's conviction on both counts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    8 views3 pages

    United States v. Penn, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the conviction of James Dejesus Penn for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Penn's motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, finding that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Penn's request for a Franks hearing, determining that any alleged misrepresentations in the affidavit were not necessary to the finding of probable cause. The court ultimately affirmed Penn's conviction on both counts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES DEJESUS PENN,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 02-4146

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
    (CR-01-209)
    Submitted: January 29, 2003
    Decided: February 21, 2003
    Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and
    MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    George Harper, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas
    M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Daphene R. McFerren, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    UNITED STATES v. PENN

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    James Dejesus Penn appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)
    (2000) (count one), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana
    in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2000) (count two). Finding no
    reversible error, we affirm.
    First, Penn argues that the district court erred in denying his motion
    to suppress evidence seized from his residence because the search
    warrant affidavit lacked probable cause to search, and the good faith
    exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the executing
    officer could not have reasonably relied on the warrant. In the alternative, Penn argues that the good faith exception to the exclusionary
    rule under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), should be
    rejected because it undermines the Fourth Amendment.
    We review a district courts factual findings underlying a motion
    to suppress for clear error, and the district courts legal determinations
    de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United
    States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the government. See United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d
    542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the record and conclude
    that the search warrant application established probable cause to
    search Penns residence. We therefore find it unnecessary to review
    Penns claim that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is
    inapplicable.
    Second, Penn contends that the district court erred in denying his
    request for a Franks* hearing and erred by refusing to allow him to
    call a witness in support of his request for such a hearing. We review
    for clear error the factual determinations underlying the denial of such
    a motion, and review de novo the legal conclusions. United States v.
    Photogrammetric Data Servs., Inc., 259 F.3d 229, 237 (4th Cir.
    *Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

    UNITED STATES v. PENN

    2001). To be entitled to a hearing on the validity of the search warrant


    affidavit, a defendant must "make[ ] a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant
    affidavit, and . . . the allegedly false statement is necessary to the
    finding of probable cause." Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. Even if the
    affidavit in this case contained intentional misrepresentations, we find
    that the alleged misrepresentations were not necessary to the finding
    of probable cause. Therefore, the district court did not err by refusing
    to hear testimony from a witness regarding the alleged misrepresentations.
    Accordingly, we affirm Penns conviction. 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

    You might also like