United States v. Leconte Oneal

468 F. App'x 729
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 17, 2012
Docket11-10075
StatusUnpublished

This text of 468 F. App'x 729 (United States v. Leconte Oneal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Leconte Oneal, 468 F. App'x 729 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Leconte Oneal appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrant-less probation search. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Franklin, 603 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir.2010), we affirm.

1. The police officers had probable cause to believe that Defendant resided in room 310 of the Windsor Hotel. A known informant, speaking face to face with police, told them that Defendant was selling drugs at that address. The informant gave Defendant’s name, full address, and birth year. He/she was credible because he/she used drugs and thus was familiar with sellers, and he/she was specifically told that there would be no leniency for revealing information. Police corroborated the tip through the facts that the sole occupant of the room in question had the exact birth date of Defendant, that he had a prior criminal drug record, and that the hotel was known for drug selling. See generally United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 919, 924-26 (9th Cir.2001) (discussing the factors for reliability of an informant’s tip).

2. For similar reasons, the police officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Defendant had violated the terms of his probation by selling drugs.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Franklin
603 F.3d 652 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Timothy A. Bishop
264 F.3d 919 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
468 F. App'x 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-leconte-oneal-ca9-2012.