Unpublished Disposition, 846 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1988)

No. 87-5299.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before GOODWIN and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges, and ROBERT C. BELLONI,^***  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^** 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Rudi M. Brewster, District Judge, Presiding.

Defendant-appellant Fletcher V. Martin appeals his criminal conviction on two felony counts: the manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 846, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Martin entered a conditional plea of guilty to both counts, reserving his right to this appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

On September 26, 1986, officers from the San Diego County Integrated Narcotics Task Force and the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") executed a search warrant for 35768 Rice Canyon Road, Fallbrook, California. Officer John Lane of the El Cajon Police Department secured the warrant from an El Cajon Municipal Court Judge. The warrant authorized the search of "the residence located at 35768 Rice Canyon Road ... [including] all rooms, attics, storage areas and outbuildings assigned to said premise...." The search warrant called for the seizure of controlled substances, including methamphetamine, and equipment and chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

As a result of the search, the officers seized methamphetamine, chemicals, equipment and weapons from a "machine shop" and "conex" shipping containers located on the property. This evidence, however, was not located in Martin's residence itself.

Martin contends that there was insufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant. We will not reverse a magistrate's determination of probable cause unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Dozier, No. 86-1249, slip op. at 4582 (9th Cir. April 19, 1988). This court must apply the "totality of the circumstances" approach, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), to determine whether the district court had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Dozier, slip op. at 4582.

Martin asserts that the affidavit in support of the warrant does not establish the reliability of the two informants' information used to establish probable cause. We disagree.

The affidavit states that Officer Lane's informant provided accurate information on past occasions involving the same type of criminal activity. Further, the informant's reliability was sufficiently demonstrated through not only police corroboration of the information provided, but also by the corroboration of the DEA informant. See United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1397 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 1475, 1480 (9th Cir. 1985).

Even if probable cause were lacking, we hold that the officers acted in good faith. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Contrary to Martin's argument, the warrant was not so facially deficient as to preclude good faith reliance.

Martin moved below to suppress all evidence seized because the warrant was limited to his residence; consequently, Martin contends that the search of the "machine shop" and "conex" shipping containers exceeded the scope of the warrant. We review de novo the ultimate issue of lawfulness of the search. United States v. Feldman, 788 F.2d 544, 550 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 955 (1987). We review the district court's findings of fact at a suppression hearing under the clearly erroneous standard. Id.

"A warrant is valid when it authorizes the search of a street address with several dwellings if the defendants are in control of the whole premises, if the dwellings are occupied in common, or if the entire property is suspect." United States v. Alexander, 761 F.2d 1294, 1301 (9th Cir. 1985). We agree with the district court that the warrant authorized a lawful search of the entire premises including the "machine shop" and "conex" shipping containers. The function of the property is that the defendant lives in the residence and conducts a cottage industry of vehicle maintenance and repair in the "machine shop" located approximately 160 feet from the residence. The district court properly ruled that the "entire premises were suspect" and that the "machine shop" and "conex" shipping containers were "outbuildings" within the terms of the warrant. Moreover, Martin was in control of the whole premises. See United States v. Whitten, 706 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1983); cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984); United States v. Whitney, 633 F.2d 902, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1004 (1981).

AFFIRMED.