U.S. v. Roland

In prosecution on charge of felon in possession of firearm, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress handguns and ammunition that police seized from his vehicle pursuant to search warrant, and where defendant claimed that officer who applied for search warrant omitted material information that, according to defendant, would have negated probable cause finding. Record showed that police came to hospital and interviewed third-party, who stated that: (1) he had been shot three times in his hip; and (2) he then called defendant to give him ride to hospital. One officer then looked through window of defendant’s vehicle and saw presence of blood and two handguns, and officer then sought and received warrant to search defendant’s vehicle. Defendant asserted that: (1) officer failed to inform judge issuing warrant that third-party did not know identity of shooter, that third-party knew defendant and requested that he take third-party to hospital, and that defendant drove third-party to hospital; and (2) said facts negated any finding of probable cause to search his vehicle. Ct. of Appeals, though, found that none of omitted facts negated finding of probable cause, since: (1) at time of warrant application, officer did not know to whom handguns belonged or know whether handguns were same guns involved in third-party’s shooting; and (2) there was fair probability that search of defendant’s vehicle would uncover evidence that would aid police in their investigation. Moreover, fact that omitted facts, if accepted as true, would have exonerated defendant as suspect in shooting did not require different result.