United States of America v. David Headon

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 01-3350 & 01-3771
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID HEADON,
Appellant in 01-3350
ROGER MOORE,
Appellant in 01-3771
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim Nos. 01-cr-00052 & 01-cr-00074)
District Judges Honorable Donald E Ziegler & Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 1, 2002
Before: NYGAARD, ROTH, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 2, 2002)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
These consolidated appeals present a common issue, the validity of the
searches of defendants’ homes and vehicles. Both defendants pleaded guilty, reserving
the right to appeal the denial of their suppression motions.
Search warrants were issued by a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of
Westmoreland County at the behest of an experienced state trooper. The officer’s
affidavit detailed the investigation of a robbery of a number of guns and their subsequent
disposition. The trooper averred, inter alia, he had been told by the thief, Gino Conti,
that he had sold guns to Roger Williams who, in turn, had sold them to defendants.
The searches of both defendants’ residences yielded the stolen guns and,
after indictment, the defendants moved for suppression, asserting lack of probable cause
for the issuance of the warrants. The cases were assigned to two different district judges
for disposition. One judge found no probable cause existed, but the other judge took the
position that the affidavit was sufficient in that respect. Both judges, however, agreed
that the good faith exception set out in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), was
applicable.
Because the two judges were in agreement on the good faith issue, we will
first discuss those rulings. Suppression is inappropriate when an officer executes a search
in objective reasonable reliance on a warrant’s authority. United States v. Williams, 3
F.3d 69, 74 (3d Cir. 1993). "The mere existence of a warrant typically suffices to prove
that an officer conducted a search in good faith and justifies application of the good faith
exception." United States v. Hodge, 246 F.3d 301, 307-08 (3d Cir. 2001).
Although the good faith doctrine is subject to a number of exceptions as
outlined in Hodge, we agree with the District Court that none are applicable here. The
fact that two highly respected district judges disagreed on the probable cause issue only
reinforces the objective reasonableness of the officer’s reliance on the validity of the

-- 1 of 2 --

warrants. We have no hesitation in upholding the good faith ruling in these two cases
and, therefore, have no need to analyze the probable cause issue.
Accordingly, the judgments of the District Court will be affirmed.
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Joseph F. Weis, Jr.
United States Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --