United States v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2007)
United States v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2007)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00163-1)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-appellant Jamal LaRonne Ray a/k/a Jamal Douglas
entered a conditional plea of guilty to the crime of possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(1)
and
924(a)(2),
subject
to
his
right
to
appeal
the
I.
On May 22, 2005, after attending a high school prom, four
youths were shot to death in Huntington, West Virginia.
25,
2005,
Shannon
Dennis
admitted
to
investigators
On July
that
he
Warrant read:
On May 22nd at approximately 0430 hours, four separate
[sic] victims were shot to death at 1410 Charleston Ave.
Victims were Donte Ward, Eddick Clark, Megan Poston, and
Michael Dillon.
During the investigation, numerous
interviews were conducted and information to believe
1
Sergeant
Johnsons
affidavit
requested
to
search
defendants
upon
Sergeant
Johnsons
application,
Cabell
County
Circuit Judge David Pancake issued the search warrant on July 26,
2005.4
During the search of defendants residence, the investigators
found a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol and a 7.62 mm rifle.
Because the warrant allowed for the seizure of evidence of [g]uns
The Search Warrant listed the evidence sought from the search
as:
Guns - ammo - clothing - fibers - blood - hair - personal
items of victims, shoes, drugs - newspaper articles
concerning the drug transactions - money from drug
related crimes - drug paraphernalia - indicia of
residency
photograph
of
Douglas
and
criminal
associates.
4
II.
Defendant raises two issues regarding the district courts
denial of his motion to suppress:
must
believe
that
there
is
fair
probability
that
Specifically regarding
affidavit
assertions
supporting
directly
residence.
the
linking
warrant
the
items
contains
no
sought
defendant's
to
factual
Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Servance, 394 F.3d 222, 230
(4th Cir. 2005)).
In the instant case, there was sufficient evidence of probable
cause that defendant was involved in the four homicides.
There
Department
(HPD)
accident
report
of
July
14,
2005,
alleged
defendants residence.
involvement
in
the
four
homicides
with
nexus of the vehicle, the list of items sought for seizure included
things such as clothing, fibers, blood, and hair which an
issuing judge could always reasonably infer would be at a suspects
residence.
Beyond personal items such as clothes and beyond bodily
evidence, we also have previously held that an issuing court may
reasonably infer that a firearm and its accoutrements a silencer
may be stored at a suspects residence.
United States v.
weapons
would
be
stored
at
suspects
residence,
the
also
argues
that
Sergeant
Johnsons
affidavit
We disagree.
155-56 (1978); see also United States v. Shorter, 328 F.3d 167 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 928 (2003).
When
that
defendant
had
the
burden
of
proof,
defendant
presented witnesses.
Defendants
key
material
claims
of
intentional
that Allison Dennis had told investigators that Dennis was a liar
and lied about everything (Defendant-Appellants Brief at 17-18)
and, two, that she had told investigators that Dennis was with her
the day of the murders until I went to sleep.
Joint Appendix
(J.A.) at 104.
(1)
There was no
fact:
[I]ts clear that there was ample information provided to
the police, but most of it was inconsistent and
contradictory.
The information was provided over the
course of several weeks following the murders.
The Court would find in this case that all of this
conflicting information was not required to be part of
any application for an arrest or a search warrant.
* * *
Further, the Court finds in this case that to the
extent information was that the primary claim here was
that critical information was omitted, not that there was
false information submitted to the issuing judge. Thats
an important distinction.
7
The Court does not see that there was anything false
in the affidavit provided to the judge.
What was in
there was at least literally true insofar as the
information having been provided to the police. When
reviewing the sufficiency of information in this context,
theres an important distinction between providing false
information or omitting information.
Providing false
information is much more likely to cause a magistrate or
an issuing judge to be misled, much more indicative of an
intent to mislead. I dont see any evidence that that
was the case here.
J.A. at 139-40.
The district court continued, the Court would find that the
defendant has failed to show, first, that the information was
false. . . .
J.A. at 141.
of
omission
alone
does
not
demonstrate
intentional
intentional
misrepresentation,
movant
only
prevails
if
Id.
Issuing
courts
informants
must
tolerate
evidence
deliberately misled.
Finally,
so
the
long
as
possible
the
inaccuracy
issuing
court
of
is
an
not
while
Denniss
statement
was
the
single
most
separate
cooperating
witness
corroborated
Denniss
statements.
(2) As to the second omission that Allison Dennis told
investigators that Dennis was with her the day of the murders the
evidence at the Franks hearing also showed that Allison Dennis told
the investigators in the same interview that she was really not
certain that Dennis was with her that day because they had been
split up for a while.
J.A. at 108.
we
affirm
the
district
courts
denial
of