CA5: Suppression hearing not required when def doesn’t make a showing for one

On the face of the papers, the motion to suppress and the government’s response, defendant doesn’t show an issue for an evidentiary hearing. Denial of a suppression hearing is governed by the abuse of discretion standard, and there was no abuse here. United States v. Guerra, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4438 (5th Cir. March 19, 2015):

The officers had reason to believe that evidence relevant to an illegal narcotics transaction was in the vehicle. Surveillance had established an interaction between a passenger in Guerra’s car and two individuals suspected of dealing narcotics. The police had continued surveillance on the vehicle. When the officer approached the men, Guerra pulled a white object out of his pants pocket and placed it in the car. When he looked inside the car, the officer observed a clear plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance, located on the center console. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the district court did not err in determining that officers had probable cause to believe that evidence related to criminal activity was in Guerra’s vehicle. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 343; Banuelos-Romero, 597 F.3d at 767.

Finally, as to Guerra’s claim regarding an evidentiary hearing, this court reviews a district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on a suppression motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 1983). Suppression hearings are required “only when necessary to receive evidence on an issue of fact” and when a defendant has “allege[d] sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief.” Id. “Factual allegations set forth in the defendant’s motion, including any accompanying affidavits, must be sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and non-conjectural, to enable the court to conclude that a substantial claim is presented.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Guerra has not established that a hearing was necessary to receive evidence on any issue of fact and has failed to present sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief on his suppression motion. See Harrelson, 705 F.2d at 737. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Guerra’s request for an evidentiary hearing. See id.