USA v. Patrick Moody, No. 15-10910 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10910 Document: 00513682678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10910 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 19, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PATRICK MOODY, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14-CR-365-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Patrick Moody was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to serve 72 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Consistent with his arguments in the district court, he insists that the driveway where an officer was standing when he smelled marijuana was part Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-10910 Document: 00513682678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 No. 15-10910 of the curtilage and that the officer was thus trespassing when he was there. Thus, he argues, the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based was grounded in a falsehood vis-à-vis the officer’s assertion that he was where he had a right to be when he smelled marijuana coming from Moody’s home. In analyzing the denial of a suppression motion, we review factual findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of law enforcement action de novo. United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 406-07 (5th Cir. 1999). Where, as here, a search warrant is involved, we use a two-step process for considering a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress. Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. First, we ask whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Id. If it does, no further analysis is necessary, and the district court’s denial will be affirmed. Id. If the exception does not apply, however, we proceed to the second step: “ensur[ing] that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and ellipsis omitted). Our review of the record and pertinent jurisprudence supports the district court’s conclusion that Moody’s driveway was not part of the curtilage of his home. See United States v. Beene, 818 F.3d 157, 162 (5th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed, No. 15-9651 (June 8, 2016). Accordingly, Moody has not shown that the affidavit underlying the warrant was grounded in a falsehood, nor has he shown that the searching officers did not act in good faith by relying on the warrant, and there is no need to conduct any further analysis. See Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
