U.S. v. Vaughn, No. 86-3096

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
• Writing for the Court: Before SILBERMAN and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges, and McGOWAN; PER CURIAM
• Citation: 830 F.2d 1185
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Leethaniel VAUGHN, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 86-3096
• Decision Date: 16 October 1987

Page 1185

830 F.2d 1185 265 U.S.App.D.C. 301 UNITED STATES of America
v.
Leethaniel VAUGHN, Appellant. No. 86-3096. United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Sept. 18, 1987.
Decided Oct. 16, 1987.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Criminal No. 86-00221-01).

Thomas M. O'Malley, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Sharon A. Sprague, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Michael W. Farrell and Helen M. Bollwerk, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before SILBERMAN and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges, and McGOWAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Leethaniel Vaughn challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a search of his vehicle. Vaughn attacks the validity of the search on two grounds. First, he argues that the search warrant did not describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity. Second, appellant argues a lack of probable cause to issue the warrant. We reject appellant's arguments and affirm the district court.

On May 30, 1986, police searched a vehicle driven by Vaughn and recovered a quantity of cocaine and a sum of money. Following a trial by jury, Vaughn was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a) (1982).

Page 1186

The search was made pursuant to a warrant that described the vehicle to be searched as "a Blazer 4X4 2 door Black in color with tinted windows bearing Maryland tags." Vaughn asserts that insofar as neither the model year, the license number, nor other distinguishing features of the vehicle were included in the description, the warrant does not describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity to meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

The warrant in question was accompanied by an affidavit that was incorporated by reference into the warrant. Thus, the description on the face of the warrant must be read in conjunction with descriptions contained within the affidavit. "[T]he warrant may properly be construed with reference to an affidavit for purposes of sustaining the particularity of the premises to be searched, provided (1) the affidavit accompanies the warrant, and in addition (2) the warrant uses 'suitable words of reference' which incorporate the affidavit by reference." Moore v. United States, 461 F.2d 1236, 1238 (D.C.Cir.1972); accord United States v. Thompson, 495 F.2d 165, 170 (D.C.Cir.1974). The affidavit states that appellant ran a drug distribution network from the 13th Street Variety Store ("Variety Store"), that the Blazer was owned by appellant, and that the Blazer was used by appellant to deliver drugs. The affidavit fairly implies that the search was limited to a Blazer owned by appellant and located in the vicinity of the Variety Store. ¹ In fact, the Blazer was found within two hundred feet of the store very shortly after the issuance of the warrant.

"Under the Fourth Amendment a search warrant sufficiently describes the place to be searched if 'the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.' " Moore, 461 F.2d at 1238 (quoting Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925)). This requirement certainly would have been met if the warrant had included the license plate number of the Blazer. A vehicle search warrant ordinarily should include the...