United States of America v. Titus Dion Peterson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TITUS DION PETERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30151
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05566-BHS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Titus Peterson appeals his convictions for drug-related offenses subsequent to
a bench trial where the district court relied on evidence obtained from a search warrant
FILED
DEC 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

that Peterson sought unsuccessfully to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Given the specific facts provided in the affidavit in support of the search
warrant, including but not limited to evidence of Peterson’s involvement in ongoing
drug trafficking operations, reliable information about Peterson made by an informant
six weeks prior to the date of the affidavit, and the seizure of twenty-nine grams of
rock cocaine from Peterson the day prior to the affidavit’s attestation, the evidence
used to obtain the search warrant was not stale. See United States v. Greany, 929 F.2d
523, 525 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, to the extent that any evidence relied upon was old,
it was refreshed by current evidence of continuing drug trafficking activity that was
“recently obtained” prior to the filing of the affidavit. United States v. Vaandering,
50 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194,
1203-04 (9th Cir. 2004).
2. We adopt by reference the well-articulated reasons in Judge Benjamin
Settle’s oral ruling in concluding that Peterson did not make the necessary “substantial
preliminary showing” to support his claim for a Franks hearing. Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --