On October 19, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Bryant[i], which serves as excellent review of the law related search warrants, curtilage, and inaccurate information in the search warrant affidavit.  The relevant facts of Bryant are as follows:

On July 8, 2020, a state judge in Osceola County, Florida, issued an arrest warrant for Bryant for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, among other offenses, arising from a shooting in May 2020. Believing that Bryant was outside the county, local law enforcement requested assistance from U.S. Deputy Marshal Andy Deacon, the federal warrants coordinator in Fort Pierce, Florida.

Deacon organized a team to execute the arrest warrant at a single-family residence on Avenue K in Fort Pierce, where Bryant’s mother lived and where multiple officers had previously encountered Bryant. That address was also listed on the arrest warrant. The arrest team included ATF Special Agent Seth Christy and Detectives Christopher Jadin and Marc Stotler of the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office.

On July 9, 2020, the arrest team converged on the residence after officers saw Bryant pull up in a Nissan sedan and park in the driveway next to the house. Jadin approached Bryant, who was sitting in the driver’s seat, and conducted an arrest. The passenger, Shaun Cole, was standing outside by the car. Jadin saw that the door of the house near where Bryant had parked was ajar.

Not long after, Bryant’s mother arrived on the scene. She notified law enforcement that a child could be inside her house, so Deacon went inside with her to check. They did not see a child, but Deacon saw a Glock handgun in Bryant’s mother’s bedroom, some firearm paraphernalia in the house, and a box for a handgun in the open closet of another bedroom.

Christy approached Bryant’s mother outside the residence, seeking to obtain her consent to search the home for evidence related to the May 2020 shooting. At that time, Christy was recording the events using his cell phone, which he had placed in a chest pocket. Bryant’s mother was on the phone when Christy came over, and she was overhead saying that Bryant and Cole “just came in from out of town” after having been gone for “over a week,” and that she was “tired of all this bulls—” and had told him “to leave” and not “even come back to this . . . place.” After ending the call, Bryant’s mother confirmed to Christy that she owned and kept several guns in the house, including a 9mm under her pillow, but she denied owning any weapon that shot .40 or .380 ammunition, which had been used in the shooting.

Bryant’s mother gave consent for a small group of officers to search the house. But first she wanted to get her keys back from either Bryant or Cole. She said, “We literally just left the store. They have my keys. One of them have my keys…. So, if you can get my keys, it’s got a pink thing. That’s my key.” She repeated that same point—that Bryant and Cole together had recently obtained her keys—multiple times. She also said that they had her phone, which was found in Bryant’s possession.

The officers eventually recovered the keys and returned them to Bryant’s mother. Jadin testified that the keys were taken from Bryant’s pocket. But it appears he was mistaken about that. Based on Christy’s cell phone video footage, the district court found that the officers obtained the keys from Cole.

Christy, Deacon, and Stotler entered the house with Bryant’s mother. Christy asked which room was Bryant’s, and Bryant’s mother responded that he “don’t stay here with me,” did not “live here,” and was “barely here,” and instead was staying with his girlfriend. But she agreed with Christy’s statement that Bryant “stays here sometimes,” and she said he had slept there “over a week ago.” She identified one of the rooms as where he slept. A search of that room did not reveal any firearms or personal items belonging to Bryant.

Christy asked to check the caliber of the guns in the house, and Bryant’s mother took him first to her bedroom, where the 9mm was located. Meanwhile, Stotler walked into a third bedroom and saw, in an open closet, a Crown Royal bag on a shelf near a box for an FN handgun. Stotler notified Christy and opened the bag, which contained two “AK-47”-style magazines and corresponding ammunition. In that bedroom, the officers also saw men’s clothing and equipment consistent with Bryant’s music career.

In discussing the firearms she owned or possessed, Bryant’s mother initially did not mention an FN gun. She also incorrectly stated that 9mm magazines were in the Crown Royal bag. She later claimed, once Christy mentioned an FN gun, that she previously had owned and sold an FN gun. The FN gun box was significant to Christy and Stotler because they had seen a photo of Bryant, posted to social media a few weeks earlier, with what appeared to be an FN Five-Seven (5.7 mm) handgun in his pocket.

After the consent search, the officers decided to seek a state search warrant. Soon after, Detective Randy Walker of the St. Lucie Sheriff’s Office arrived on the scene to draft the warrant affidavit. While writing the affidavit, Walker spoke to and questioned the officers on the scene, including Christy, Deacon, Jadin, and Stotler. These officers did not proofread what Walker wrote, but nothing suggests he inaccurately described what they told him. The details of the warrant affidavit will be discussed in more detail below.

A state-court judge issued a warrant to search the “residence, curtilage, outbuildings, and conveyances, and persons located on said curtilage” for evidence of the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, Fla. Stat. § 790.23. Based on the warrant, officers searched not only the house but also the Nissan sedan that Bryant had parked in the driveway. Inside a bag in the Nissan’s trunk, officers recovered a loaded FN Five-seven handgun and a receipt with Bryant’s name on it.[ii]

Bryant filed a motion to suppress and argued that the search warrant failed to establish probable cause to search his car, and that there were material misrepresentations or omissions in the search warrant affidavit.  The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Bryant appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the court examined whether the search of Bryant’s vehicle was reasonable under the search warrant for the residence.  Bryant argued that searching his car exceeded the scope of the search warrant.  Specifically, he argued that the search warrant did not expressly establish a nexus between his car and the criminal activity, but rather concentrates upon the house and the room in which the FN box was observed.

The court first noted the legal principles relevant to this issue and stated

Search warrants must be supported by probable cause and describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV. When the place is a residence, the probable-cause affidavit must establish “a connection between the defendant and the residence to be searched and a link between the residence and any criminal activity.” United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2002).

As a reviewing court, we must ensure that the affidavit “provide[d] the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause”—that is, that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983).[iii]

For the reasons discussed below, the court of appeals held that the search of the car was reasonable and did not warrant suppression of the gun.  First, the court noted that the search warrant authorized “a search of the residence, and its ‘curtilage, outbuildings, and conveyances, and persons located on said curtilage for items and contraband as listed.’”[iv]  This included a search for firearms and ammunition.  The court held that, since the car was a “conveyance” that was located within the home’s curtilage (on the driveway), its search was expressly authorized by the search warrant.

Second, the court noted that the search warrant affidavit did provide a “substantial basis” for searching the car.  The court explained that Bryant was arrested at the car, the nature of the arrest warrant (it involved aggravated assault with a weapon), the recent photo of Bryant with an FN handgun, the FN box in the room in which he slept, and the car being located within the curtilage of the residence were sufficient to establish a nexus between the car and the evidence sought.

Thus, the search of the car was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The court also examined the alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the search warrant affidavit and whether those merit suppress of evidence.  The court noted the relevant legal principles and stated

An affidavit supporting a search warrant is presumed valid.” United States v. Whyte, 928 F.3d 1317, 1333 (11th Cir. 2019). Under Franks, a defendant may overcome that presumption and obtain suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant by proving two things: (1) the affiant intentionally or recklessly made misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit; and (2) absent those misrepresentations or omissions, probable cause would have been lacking. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978);[v]

The court of appeals then examined the evidence and held that, if there were inaccuracies, they were caused by unintentional error, rather than being intentional or reckless, as required by the first element of the rule from Franks above.  Further, the court noted that none of the alleged inaccuracies would negate probable cause for the search.  Therefore, suppression was not warranted.

As such, the court of appeals upheld the denial of the motion to suppress.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

_________________________________________________

Citations

[i] No. 22-12023 (11th Cir. Decided October 19, 2023 Unpublished)

[ii] Id. at 1-6

[iii] Id. at 8 (emphasis added)

[iv] Id. at 15

[v] Id. at 9 (emphasis added)