United States v. Thompson, 041211 FED4, 10-4321

Docket Nº:10-4321
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Michael E. Lawlor, Andrew R. Szekely, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christine Celeste, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 12, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4321

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

April 12, 2011

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: March 30, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00128-CCB-1)

Michael E. Lawlor, Andrew R. Szekely, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.

Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christine Celeste, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Thompson was charged in a two-count indictment with possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant, arguing that the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. The district court concluded that even if the warrant was unsupported by probable cause, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied, and denied Thompson's motion. A jury later convicted him of both counts, and Thompson was sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment. He noted a timely appeal, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm.

"Generally, evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule, the overarching purpose of which is to deter future unlawful police conduct." United States v. Andrews, 577 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1031 (2009). "The deterrence objective, however, is not achieved through the suppression of evidence obtained by an officer acting with objective good faith within the scope of a search warrant issued by a magistrate." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, "under . . . [the] good faith exception [in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)], evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate does not need to be excluded if the officer's...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP