United States v. Khounsavanh

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
113 F.3d 279 (1997)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the totality of the circumstances, a search warrant affidavit based on a confidential informant's tip is supported by probable cause if the tip is sufficiently corroborated by a police-supervised controlled buy of narcotics from the premises to be searched.

Facts:

A confidential informant told Detective Freddy Rocha that two men, known as "Fat Boy" and "Turtle," were storing and selling crack cocaine from the first-floor rear apartment at 676-678 Chalkstone Avenue.
The informant provided physical descriptions of both men.
Detective Rocha supervised a "controlled buy" by first searching the informant for contraband, finding none, and then providing him with currency.
The detective watched the informant enter the rear door of the multi-family building and exit five minutes later.
The informant met the detective at a pre-arranged location and provided a quantity of a substance, later identified as cocaine, stating he had purchased it from "Fat Boy" inside the specified apartment.
When police later executed a search warrant for the apartment, Thakhone Khounsavanh and another man, both matching the informant's descriptions, fled to a bedroom upon the officers' entry.
During the subsequent search, police discovered crack cocaine in the kitchen ceiling and bedroom, drugs on the other man's person, and a gas bill in Khounsavanh's name.

Procedural Posture:

Based on an affidavit by Detective Freddy Rocha, a state court judge issued a warrant to search the first-floor rear apartment at 676-678 Chalkstone Avenue and the persons of "Fat Boy" and "Turtle."
Thakhone Khounsavanh was indicted in federal district court for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.
Khounsavanh filed a motion in the U.S. District Court to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing the warrant was not supported by probable cause.
The district court denied the motion to suppress.
Khounsavanh entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
Khounsavanh (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with the United States as appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a search warrant affidavit, based on a confidential informant's tip and a single controlled buy where police did not observe the transaction inside the specific target apartment, establish probable cause to search the premises under the Fourth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge

Yes. Under the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit established probable cause to search the apartment. While the court rejected the government's argument for a per se rule that a controlled buy always establishes probable cause, it found that the facts here were sufficient. The informant's tip was significantly corroborated by the controlled buy; the informant went into the building without drugs and came out with drugs he claimed to have purchased from the target. This sequence of events "reduced the chances of a reckless or prevaricating tale" and provided a "substantial basis" for the magistrate to believe a "fair probability" existed that contraband would be found in the apartment. The court further held that while the affidavit alone did not establish probable cause to search the person of Khounsavanh, his flight upon the officers' legal entry, combined with the other information, was sufficient to establish probable cause to search his person at that time.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the flexible "totality of the circumstances" test from Illinois v. Gates in the context of controlled buys. It clarifies that while a single controlled buy is powerful evidence corroborating an informant's tip, it does not create a per se rule automatically satisfying probable cause; rather, it is a very strong factor in the overall analysis. The case also highlights the crucial distinction between probable cause to search a place versus probable cause to search a person, demonstrating how the latter can arise from events that occur during the lawful execution of a premises search warrant. This precedent guides lower courts on weighing the reliability of controlled buys where police observation is imperfect.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Khounsavanh (1997)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"