978 F.2d 1026 (8th Cir. 1992), 91-3536, United States v. Pressley

Docket Nº:91-3536.
Citation:978 F.2d 1026
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur PRESSLEY, Appellant.
Case Date:October 23, 1992
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1026

978 F.2d 1026 (8th Cir. 1992)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

Arthur PRESSLEY, Appellant.

No. 91-3536.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

October 23, 1992

Submitted Sept. 17, 1992.

Page 1027

Suzanne Philbrick, Chesterton, Ind., for appellant.

Dean R. Hoag, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before BEAM, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Arthur Pressley appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He avers that the trial court erred in failing to grant his pretrial motions, in admitting certain substances into evidence, and in submitting the case to the jury. After a review of the arguments and the record, we affirm.

I.

A.

Defendant moved before trial to suppress substances seized pursuant to a search warrant, alleging that the affidavit that served as a basis for the warrant contained false information. In order to have prevailed on this motion, defendant would have had to show by a preponderance of the evidence not only that the information was false, but that the affiant (or his source) either knew that it was false or showed reckless disregard for whether it was true. The parties are on common ground that defendant is not entitled to a hearing on this question unless the information that remains in the affidavit, after striking the false matter, was insufficient to satisfy an objective magistrate that probable cause for the issuance of the warrant existed. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).

Defendant asserts that the affidavit supporting the petition for a warrant contained a knowingly false statement that officers had surveilled the relevant house and had thereby corroborated the statements of a reliable informant that the house contained large amounts of cocaine and was a "safe house" for storing large amounts of cocaine. It turns out that the corroboration consisted merely in ascertaining that defendant paid utilities on the residence to be searched. The infirmity in defendant's position, however, is that the affidavit, without regard to any allegedly false statements, contained sufficient matter from a reliable informant to support the issuance of the warrant. It is well settled that the statements of a reliable informant can provide...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP