Filed: Apr. 06, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 6, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-30027 Summary Calendar LEON HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HARRY LEE; JEFFERSON PARISH POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOYLE, III; PHILLIP DESALVO; DEPUTY CLOGHER; OFFICER GUILLOT; OFFICER CERAVOLO; OFFICER BRYSON, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 02-CV-22
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 6, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-30027 Summary Calendar LEON HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HARRY LEE; JEFFERSON PARISH POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOYLE, III; PHILLIP DESALVO; DEPUTY CLOGHER; OFFICER GUILLOT; OFFICER CERAVOLO; OFFICER BRYSON, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 02-CV-223..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 6, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30027
Summary Calendar
LEON HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRY LEE; JEFFERSON PARISH POLICE DEPARTMENT;
JOHN DOYLE, III; PHILLIP DESALVO; DEPUTY CLOGHER;
OFFICER GUILLOT; OFFICER CERAVOLO; OFFICER BRYSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-2233-B
USDC No. 02-CV-2761
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leon Harris appeals the magistrate judge’s judgment
denying his claim that Jefferson Parish deputies entered his
apartment twice without a warrant in November 1998, planted cocaine
and a firearm, and threatened and beat him and his wife, Adele
Harris. For the first time on appeal, Harris argues that Adele
Harris was not his wife, did not live in the apartment, and did not
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
have authority to consent to a search of the apartment. Harris may
not raise a new theory of relief for the first time on appeal. See
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999).
Harris has not shown that the magistrate judge erred in
determining that the first search did not violate his Fourth
Amendment rights. The magistrate judge implicitly determined that
the officers’ testimony was more credible than the Harrises’
testimony concerning the first search; Harris has not shown that
the magistrate judge’s credibility determination was clearly
erroneous. See Baldwin v. Stalder,
137 F.3d 836, 839 (5th Cir.
1998). Harris has not shown that the magistrate judge clearly
erred in determining that Adele Harris consented to the search and
that her consent was not due to coercion, force, threats, or any
promises made by the officers. See United States v. Shelton,
337
F.3d 529, 532 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied,
124 S. Ct. 1507
(2004).
Harris argues that the magistrate judge erred in deter-
mining that the second search did not violate his Fourth Amendment
rights. Harris has not shown that the magistrate judge clearly
erred in determining that the officers’ testimony was more credible
than the Harrises’ testimony concerning the second search. See
Baldwin, 137 F.3d at 839. Harris has not shown that the magistrate
judge clearly erred in determining that the officers had exigent
circumstances to conduct the second search of his apartment. See
2
United States v. Vasquez,
953 F.2d 176, 179 (5th Cir. 1992). The
evidence presented at the trial indicates that through the open
doorway of his apartment, the officers observed Harris jump up from
the kitchen table and run to the back of the apartment with a clear
plastic bag containing a white powder substance. The magistrate
judge did not err in determining that the officers believed that
Harris was attempting to destroy contraband and that exigent cir-
cumstances existed justifying the warrantless search of Harris’s
apartment. See United States v. Blount,
123 F.3d 831, 837 (5th
Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
3