Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Roberts, 4th Cir. (1998)
United States v. Roberts, 4th Cir. (1998)
No. 97-4380
insure the judge had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause
existed. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). The judge's
task is "to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given
all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him . . . there is
a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found
in a particular place." Id. In making our assessment, we consider the
totality of the circumstances, including whether, from the affidavit,
the judge could assess the informant's reliability and his basis of
knowledge and could evaluate the degree of the officer's corroboration of the informant's tip. Id.; see also United States v. Lalor, 996
F.2d 1578, 1581 (4th Cir. 1993).
Superson submitted a detailed ten-page affidavit in support of his
request for a search warrant. According to Superson, two confidential
informants provided him information linking Roberts and his residence to a series of commercial burglaries. One informant named four
men, including Roberts, involved in a string of commercial burglaries.
One of the men named was Roberts's brother, Larry Roberts. The
informant described in detail how the burglaries were undertaken. He
described a scenario in which the burglars would disable telephone
and alarm systems, forcibly enter the building, and pry open any safes
or remove the safes they were unable to open. The burglars wore
gloves, hoods, and masks during the burglaries. The details provided
by the informant were consistent with what Superson knew of the
burglaries. According to the informant, safes removed from commercial establishment were taken to 8131 2nd Street, Larry Roberts's
home address, to be pried open. The safes were later dumped in a
creek behind the home or in another creek. The informant also
described an occasion when Roberts and the other burglars requested
help from a man named Jan to unload a safe from a truck. Jan worked
in a junkyard next to the 2nd Street address.
Superson corroborated much of the information provided by the
informant. He verified names and addresses. He also interviewed Jan,
who recalled unloading a safe, but could not recall Roberts being
present at the time. He did, however, recall Roberts visiting the 2nd
Street address. He gave Superson Roberts's phone number. Superson
entered the 2nd Street property, which was abandoned, and found a
set of welding and oxygen tanks and other tools. Superson recovered
3
safes in the creeks described by the informant. The safes were later
found to be stolen from commercial establishments.
Superson also learned through police reports that one of the men
named by the informant had a prior arrest for a commercial burglary.
At his arrest, he had keys to a Ford Escort belonging to Fletcher.
Police found pry bars, a splitting axe, and brown gloves in the Escort.
Another informant did not name Roberts as one of the burglars;
however, he did provide the other names provided by the prior informant. In addition, he told Superson that the three men were seen in
a Camaro with license plate number CTX-216. A records search
revealed Fletcher owned that vehicle. (JA at 13-19).
On appeal, Roberts contends Superson's affidavit did not contain
sufficient information to link the burglaries to Roberts's home. In
Lalor, we recognized "[i]n this and other circuits, residential searches
have been upheld only where some information links the criminal
activity to the defendant's residence . . . . Where no evidence connects
the drug activity to the residence, the courts have found the warrant
defective." Lalor, 996 F.2d at 1583.
Superson's affidavit gave no indication of the informants' reliability or basis for knowledge. In issuing the warrant, a magistrate must
look at the totality of the circumstances and an informant's reliability
and basis for knowledge are "no longer independent requirements."
Lalor, 996 F.2d at 1581; see also United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d
116, 118 (4th Cir. 1996). Any information provided by an informant
may establish probable cause if the information is sufficiently corroborated. See United States v. Miller, 925 F.2d 695, 698 (4th Cir. 1991).
In this instance, we find that Superson sufficiently corroborated the
information provided by the informants. Superson verified names and
addresses, located the safes as directed, found equipment that could
be used to open safes at an address provided by one of the informants,
discovered one of the names provided had a prior arrest for burglary,
and corroborated in part the incident with Jan at the junkyard. Corroboration of some of the details is often sufficient because "an informant
[who] is right about some things . . . [is] more probably right about
other facts." Gates, 462 U.S. at 244. Even corroboration of innocent
4