U.S. v. Stone

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony STONE, Defendant-Appellant

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Nov 8, 2010

399 F. App'x 684 (2d Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-3528.

November 8, 2010.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Ellen B. Burns, Judge) denying a motion by Defendant-Appellant Anthony Stone ("defendant") to suppress evidence.

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

J. Patten Brown, III, Law Offices of Pat Brown, Bloomfield, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Geoffrey M. Stone, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut (David B. Fein, United States Attorney, on the brief, Raymond F. Miller,

Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Appellee.

PRESENT: WALKER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges, JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.¹

1 The Honorable John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant appeals, in particular, the District Court's September 18, 2007 ruling and October 9, 2008 amended ruling, denying his motion to suppress evidence found by the police during a search of his home in the presence of his estranged wife Tayarisha Stone ("Mrs. Stone"). Defendant claims that Mrs. Stone lacked actual authority to consent to a search of the premises under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that she did not voluntarily consent to a search of the premises. Defendant also claims that the District Court erred in determining that he did not meet his burden of showing that the search warrant affidavit contained a false statement or omission that was made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court's conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error, taking those facts in the light most favorable to the government. See, e.g., United United States v. Lucky, 569 F.3d 101, 105-106 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v. Watson, 404 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir. 2005).

Following de novo review, we deny defendant's claims for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its well-reasoned Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Suppress, see United States v. Stone, 3:05-cr-281 (EBB), 2007 WL 2727532 (D.Conn. Sept. 18, 2007). Specifically, we hold that the District Court properly concluded that Mrs. Stone had authority to consent, and voluntarily consented, to the morning search of the residence because she had actual authority to consent to the search of the family home and because the officers reasonably believed that she had authority to consent to the search. We find, moreover, that there was more than ample probable cause to support the search warrant; that the District Court properly concluded that the search warrant affidavit did not contain a false statement that was made knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth; and that defendant did not show that any alleged false statement was material to a finding of probable cause.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of defendant's claims and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.