US v. David Bailey, No. 10-4952 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4952 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAVID LYNN BAILEY, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00306-TDS-1) Submitted: May 24, 2011 Decided: June 7, 2011 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant, David Lynn Bailey pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He was sentenced to 180 months in prison. now contending appeals, that the district court Bailey erroneously denied the motion to suppress because the affidavit submitted in support of the probable cause. search the warrant known a man was insufficient to establish warrant exist[s] We affirm. Probable where warrant cause facts of to issue and a search circumstances reasonable prudence are in the sufficient belief to that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357, 369 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 427 (2010). [A] judicial officer issuing a search warrant must simply make a practical, commonsense determination based on the totality of the circumstances revealed in the affidavit of whether there is a substantial likelihood that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164, 173 (4th Cir. 2011). When reviewing the probable cause supporting a warrant, a reviewing court must consider only the information presented to the magistrate who issued the warrant. 2 United States v. reviewing Wilhelm, court 80 F.3d accords 116, great 118 (4th deference Cir. to 1996). the The magistrate s determination of probable cause. United States v. Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2011). In reviewing the validity of a search warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983). Bailey contends that the affidavit submitted in support of his search warrant was comparable to the affidavit in Wilhelm, where probable cause. search warrant we found that an affidavit did Wilhelm, 80 F.3d at 120-21. was premised almost entirely not establish In Wilhelm, the on information supplied by an anonymous phone caller who never met face-to-face with the arresting officer. Id. In contrast to the situation in Wilhelm, the informant in Bailey s case was an individual who previously had provided authorities with reliable information that was used in other cases involving controlled substances. The informant supplied information about Bailey and his girlfriend which authorities corroborated prior to seeking the search warrant. Further, the informant was a past drug user who was familiar with cocaine and the drug trafficking trade. filing of the affidavit, Within seventy-two hours of the the informant 3 was in the Bailey residence, where the informant observed quantities of cocaine. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the affidavit offered in support of the search warrant established the requisite probable cause. affirm. legal before We therefore We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
