Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence; Constitutionality of a search warrant; “Probable cause”; Applicability of the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule; United States v. Leon; Excusing a juror; Confidential informant (CI)

The court held that although the search warrant for defendant-Helton’s home failed to establish probable cause, the search was saved by Leon’s “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule. The court also held that it was within the district court’s discretion to excuse a juror for cause. Helton was convicted of conspiracy to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth, and FIP. Execution of the search warrant for his home led to the discovery of drugs, money, and firearms. He unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence. The court held that the search warrant for his home was not supported by probable cause where the affidavit failed to "establish a nexus between Helton’s residence and the evidence of drug trafficking that” the police officer affiant (M) sought. M received anonymous tips that Helton was selling drugs out of the home. An “unnamed source” claimed to have witnessed a drug transaction at Helton’s house. However, the affidavit did not “say that, or how, the source was known to law enforcement or that the source’s identity was provided to the judge.” This information was essential for a CI to be deemed “known.” Further, the affidavit failed to give any information about “the ‘veracity’ or ‘reliability’ of that source.” It additionally failed to contain any “information that law enforcement undertook the independent corroboration that is necessary when indicia of reliability is absent. The unreliable tip sources, therefore, are of insufficient probative value to support probable cause.” However, the court agreed with the government that Leon’s good faith exception applied. The tip offered “some support for a connection between drug dealing and Helton’s home” where the source claimed to have personally observed a sale there. In addition, the “presence of a clear baggie with some sort of residue and the opinion of the officer also supply a minor inference of support. Under the good faith standard, the totality of the information in the affidavit provides ‘some modicum of evidence’ that drug dealing was occurring at Helton’s home.” As to the district court’s ruling excusing a juror (Juror 191), the juror said that she worked at a shopping center, and that a government witness was “someone she watched for shoplifting.” Additionally, the district court “was troubled because on two separate occasions Juror 191 equivocated, saying ‘I think so’ when asked whether she could set aside her personal experience and decide the case.” Affirmed.