United States v. Reddicks, 4th Cir. (2007)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY DEONTA REDDICKS,

Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:06-cr-00010)
Submitted:
July 17, 2007
Before KING and

Circuit Judge.
DUNCAN,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
July 30, 2007
WILKINS,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Weber, III, WEBER & PEARSON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Anthony Reddicks appeals from his conviction, by
jury, of possession of more than fifty grams of crack cocaine
with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).
He argues that the search that produced evidence against him was
predicated on an insufficient or intentionally false warrant, and
that the district courts denial of his motion to suppress that
evidence should be reversed.
Moreover, he seeks a new trial
because
allowed
the
district
court
testimony by a government expert witness.
allegedly
prejudicial
For the reasons that
follow, we find no error and affirm.
I.
In support of his January 31, 2006 application for a warrant
to search the residence in which Appellant and his family lived,
Detective J.D. Carter of the Roanoke City Police submitted the
following statement:
Within the past 72 hours a reliable confidential
informant was at the residence to be searched and
observed an unknown B/M [black male] possess and offer
for sale an amount of off white chunk substance. The
B/M indicated to the informant that the off white chunk
substance was crack cocaine.
The informant is an
admitted drug user and is familiar with the packaging
and appearance of crack cocaine.
J.A. 65.
The affidavit form in the application provided for two
options: one to be checked if the officer had personal knowledge
of the facts contained therein, and the other to be checked if

the officer was advised of those facts by an informant.
checked both options.
Carter
He wrote further that the informant had
given information leading to four convictions and the capture of

a fugitive within the past several years.
commented,
detectives.
has
been
corroborated
in
All information, he
whole
or
in
part
by
Id.
Carter obtained the warrant and executed it on the same day.

In one bedroom of the house, the police found the appellant
sleeping, alone and in his underwear.
A few feet away lay a pair
of jeans containing crack cocaine and $414 in cash.
Shortly
thereafter, Appellant was arrested and indicted under 21 U.S.C.

841(a)(1).
Before trial, Appellant moved to suppress the evidence from
the search, arguing that the warrant failed to evince probable
cause and was obtained in reckless disregard of the truth.
In
support of the motion, Appellants father testified to having

been at the family residence for the seventy-two hours prior to
the execution of the warrant, and that only two friends had
visited the house within that time.
The father admitted to
having slept during the period, however.

In response, Carter testified that he met with the informant
frequently, if not daily, and that he had underrepresented the
informants
helpfulness
in
the
affidavit
to
protect
the
informants
identity:
twenty-five
arrests
this
in
informant
the
had
previous
contributed
five
to
years.
some
As
to
corroboration, Carter mentioned that he had verified that the

address given by the informant was Appellants familys, and that
he
had
dealt
regarding
with
[the
drug-related
family]
several
activity.
J.A.
times
35.
in
the
past
Crediting
the
officers testimony, the court denied the motion.

At trial, the governments trace evidence expert testified
that head and pubic hairs found in the jeans were consistent with
Appellants; other traces, such as leg hair and hair fragments,
were
not
suitable
for
microscopic
comparison.
Appellants
counsel pursued this latter fact, asking, We cannot exclude the

possibility . . . that those [non-comparable hairs] came from
someone else other than Anthony Reddicks, correct?
The
trace
expert
agreed:
since
the
hairs
comparison, she could not tell whose they were.
could
J.A. 135.
provide
no
On redirect, the
United States responded, Is it possible, then, that [the hairs]

came from Mr. Reddicks?
J.A. 136.
Over Appellants objection,
the expert answered in the affirmative.

Another
United
States
expert
witness
testified
that
Appellants DNA profile matched the major contributor of DNA to

the jeans.
This profile would be shared, theoretically, by only
one in twelve quadrillion other African Americans.
The jury
subsequently convicted Appellant, and he timely appealed.
II.
Appellant makes three arguments: (1) that the search of his
home was invalid because, on its face, the warrant was devoid of
probable cause; (2) that, if the warrant did evince probable
cause, it was because of Carters intentionally or recklessly
false statements; and (3) that the trace experts affirmative
answer in the colloquy described above was unduly prejudicial
speculation that deprived Appellant of a fair trial.
We consider
each argument in turn.

A.
The standard of review for a magistrates determination of
probable cause is one of great deference.
United States v.
Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir. 1990).
He or she need
only find, in a commonsense appraisal of the reliability and

basis of knowledge of those offering hearsay evidence, that
there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime
will
be
found
in
particular
place.
Id.
(quoting
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).

Here, Appellant asserts that the warrant was insufficient,
on its face, to establish probable cause because Carter did not
sufficiently corroborate the informants story, and because the
informant
provided
no
information
selling the drugs.
about
the
person
allegedly
Appellants
assertion
that
the
informants
tip
was
insufficient absent substantial police corroboration, relying on

United States v. Miller, 925 F.2d 695, 698 (4th Cir. 1991), is
misplaced: Miller concerns the probable cause requirements for a
warrantless
arrest
when
the
informant
advised the police, id. at 696-97 n.1.
has
never
previously
By contrast, the warrant
here stipulated that the informant was credible because he had

previously
provided
valuable
information
five
times.
[A]
proven, reliable informant is entitled to far more credence than

United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d
an unknown, anonymous tipster.

192,
197
alleged
(4th
Cir.
first-hand
2002).
In
experience
of
addition,
illegal
Carters
drug
informant
activity
at
Appellants residence, an obvious basis of knowledge for his

information.
The warrant therefore suffices for the practical,
common-sense
judgment
determination.
called
for
in
making
probable
cause
Gates, 462 U.S. at 244.
Appellants contention that the warrant needed to identify

him as the seller of the drugs misconstrues the relevant inquiry.
The magistrate was to gauge the likelihood of finding contraband
in the place described in the affidavit, not on the person of the
appellant.
Regardless of who offered the crack for sale, it was
reasonably likely that crack might be found where the alleged

sale occurred.
See Blackwood, 913 F.2d at 142-43.
B.
Appellant
also
challenges
the
warrant
via
Franks
v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), under which a criminal defendant

is entitled to a hearing on the truth of a warrants allegations
if
he
makes
affiants
substantial
statements,
preliminary
essential
to
showing
the
that
probable
the
cause
determination, were either intentionally false or in reckless

disregard of the truth,
of
motion
for
id. at 155-56.
Franks
hearing,
In reviewing the denial

we
examine
the
courts
conclusions of law de novo, but accept its findings of fact

unless clearly erroneous.
United States v. Blatstein, 482 F.3d
725, 730 (4th Cir. 2007).

Appellant argues that he made a substantial preliminary
showing based on two allegations.
First, the affidavit does not
set out any information about the alleged seller of the drugs,
undermining the credibility of the informants tip.
Second, the
officer
tip
did
confirming
not
the
actively
address.
corroborate
Appellant
any
of
therefore
the
beyond
concludes
that
Carters sworn statements, I have personal knowledge of the

facts set forth in this affidavit and [a]ll information has
been corroborated in whole or in part by detectives revealed a
reckless disregard for the truth.
Even if we accept Appellants two factual allegations as
true, he cannot prevail.
The district judge credited Carters
undisputed
testimony,
which
establishes
that
he
had
close
confidential relationship with the informant and knew Appellants

family from previous drug-related experiences.
Carter relayed a
trusted sources information about a crack sale as it was given

to him; this does not amount to a disregard of the truth merely
because the seller was unknown to the informant.
Nor, contrary
to Appellants insinuation, was the informants story necessarily

false: although Appellants father testified that no strangers
came to the house during the seventy-two hours preceding the
search, the district court correctly noted that he could not have
been aware of visitors while he was asleep.
underrepresented
the
informants
Finally, Carter
reliability,
tending
to
discourage, rather than encourage, a finding of probable cause.

His personal experience with Appellants family served as both
personal
knowledge
and
corroborat[ion]
detectives for the purposes of the affidavit.
in
part
by
J.A. 35-36.
In sum, Appellant failed to make a substantial preliminary

showing that these statements were designed to mislead . . . or
in
reckless
disregard
of
whether
they
magistrate in finding probable cause.
would
mislead
United States v. Colkley,
899 F.2d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 1990) (emphasis omitted).

the
statements
finding
were
probable
misleading,
cause:
they
probable
the
were
cause
not
Even if
essential
derived
from
to
the
informants favorable track record and his first-hand account of
drug activity, not from Carters generalized assertions.
Thus,
this claim fails.

C.
Appellant last contends that the trace evidence experts
testimony at trial that it was possible that the non-comparable
hair specimens belonged to Appellant was unduly prejudicial,
and the district court erred in allowing it.
are
reviewed
for
abuse
of
discretion.
United
Lancaster, 96 F.3d 734, 744 (4th Cir. 1996).

a
new
trial,
arguing
that
the
Evidentiary rulings
prejudice
States
v.
Appellant asks for

from
the
experts
testimony outweighed any probative value it may have had.
We
disagree for three independent reasons.

First, the trial court correctly considered the experts
statement to be an assertion of objective fact, not opinion.
The
experts statement, It is possible . . . drew no conclusions,

and was the narrowest way of asserting that the non-comparable
hairs could have, or could not have, belonged to Appellant.
discussed
below,
this
assertion
was
designed
to
As
counter
Appellants suggestion that the non-comparable hairs were not

his.
This testimony therefore tend[ed] to make the existence of
[a] fact of consequence more or less probable, Id. at 744, and

the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it.
Second, the answer that Appellant finds objectionable was
rebuttal evidence, introduced only on cross examination after
Appellant
himself
brought
up
the
topic.
To
be
admissible,
rebuttal evidence must be reasonably tailored to the inference

it seeks to refute.
(4th Cir. 2003).
United States. v. Jackson, 327 F.3d 273, 293

The governments question met this standard.
To paraphrase somewhat, Is it possible that they were Reddickss

hairs? was simply the converse of Appellants question, We
cannot exclude the possibility that they were not Reddickss,
correct?
could
Appellant insinuated that the non-comparable hairs
belong
himself).
could
to
anyone
(i.e.,
perhaps
to
someone
other
than
The governments question clarified that the hairs
also
assertion
be
to
Appellants,
rebut
seemingly
Appellants
the
weakest
insinuation.
possible
Surely
this
constitutes the nexus required between rebuttal evidence and

that which is rebutted.
United States v. Stitt, 250 F.3d 878,
897 (4th Cir. 2001).

Finally,
the
governments
other
error, if error it was, harmless.

hairs,
the
trace
evidence
expert
evidence
rendered
this
Ignoring the non-comparable

found
head
and
pubic
hairs
consistent with Appellants in the jeans containing the drugs and

money.
The DNA evidence linked Appellant to the jeans with
scientific certainty.
He was found sleeping next to those jeans
alone in his underwear.
Since it appears beyond a reasonable
doubt that the jury would have reached the same verdict, Neder v.
United
States,
527
U.S.
1,
17
10
(1999),
the
conviction
stands
regardless of whether the exchange that Appellant invited was

erroneous.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court and
uphold Appellants conviction.
We dispense with oral argument;
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court, oral argument is unnecessary
to the decisional process in this case.
AFFIRMED
11

United States v. Reddicks, 4th Cir. (2007)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Reddicks, 4th Cir. (2007)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Reddicks, 4th Cir. (2007)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ANTHONY DEONTA REDDICKS,

July 17, 2007

Before KING and

July 30, 2007

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Moreover, he seeks a new trial

testimony by a government expert witness.

For the reasons that

follow, we find no error and affirm.

The affidavit form in the application provided for two

options: one to be checked if the officer had personal knowledge

of the facts contained therein, and the other to be checked if

He wrote further that the informant had

given information leading to four convictions and the capture of

Carter obtained the warrant and executed it on the same day.

A few feet away lay a pair

of jeans containing crack cocaine and $414 in cash.

thereafter, Appellant was arrested and indicted under 21 U.S.C.

support of the motion, Appellants father testified to having

The father admitted to

having slept during the period, however.

corroboration, Carter mentioned that he had verified that the

officers testimony, the court denied the motion.

counsel pursued this latter fact, asking, We cannot exclude the

comparison, she could not tell whose they were.

United States responded, Is it possible, then, that [the hairs]

Over Appellants objection,

the expert answered in the affirmative.

Appellants DNA profile matched the major contributor of DNA to

This profile would be shared, theoretically, by only

one in twelve quadrillion other African Americans.

subsequently convicted Appellant, and he timely appealed.

each argument in turn.

Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir. 1990).

only find, in a commonsense appraisal of the reliability and

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).

selling the drugs.

insufficient absent substantial police corroboration, relying on

advised the police, id. at 696-97 n.1.

By contrast, the warrant

here stipulated that the informant was credible because he had

proven, reliable informant is entitled to far more credence than

an unknown, anonymous tipster.

Appellants residence, an obvious basis of knowledge for his

The warrant therefore suffices for the practical,

Gates, 462 U.S. at 244.

Appellants contention that the warrant needed to identify

Regardless of who offered the crack for sale, it was

reasonably likely that crack might be found where the alleged

See Blackwood, 913 F.2d at 142-43.

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), under which a criminal defendant

determination, were either intentionally false or in reckless

In reviewing the denial

conclusions of law de novo, but accept its findings of fact

United States v. Blatstein, 482 F.3d