Search and Seizure Law Blog

In a decision that has far-reaching consequences for school searches, the Tenth Circuit held that a state employee's search of a safe "out of curiosity" did not implicate Fourth Amendment concerns because the state employee did not intend to look for evidence of a crime. United States v. Soderstrand, 04-6024 (June 16, 2005). The state employee was a "clerical employee" at a public university.

On January 23, 2003, at about 3:00 a.m., James Bryan (Macine Gun)Dennison was in his gold truck, with camper shell, hanging out with his pal, Keith Allen, in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Englewood, Colorado after having been involved in a “domestic” with his girlfriend. Mr. Dennison and Mr. Allen had five handguns, three rifles, three shotguns, and two machine guns on board, as well as some drug paraphernalia. Mr. Allen had four outstanding felony warrants. When an Englewood officer came by to investigate, he found the warrants for Mr. Allen and searched the truck. The feds charged Mr. Dennison with possession of the machine guns. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Mr. Dennison’s motion to suppress. United States v. Dennison, 04-1062 (June 8, 2005).

In a decision with layers of Fourth Amendment issues, the Tenth Circuit approved the warrantless search of a toolbox at a work station when police were on the premises of a junkyard conducting a search pursuant to a state “chop shop” statute. United States v. Johnson, No. 04-6303 (June 1, 2005). Law enforcement discovered a handgun in the toolbox and charged the defendant with possession of a handgun by a felon. The district court suppressed the evidence, concluding that the search advanced a criminal investigation and was not an administrative search. The Tenth Circuit reversed finding that the motive for the search was unimportant under Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996).

In United States v. Cantu, No. 04-3291 (May 6, 2005), the Tenth Circuit found probable cause in a search warrant for a vehicle. The probable cause finding was based upon two previous arrests for drug possession, one prior conviction for cocaine possession, unidentified confidential information that the defendant was supplying drugs, and suspicious activity involving a storage facility and a “large duffel bag”. The Tenth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that his previous arrests and conviction were stale and an improper basis for a probable cause determination.

In an opinion involving a review of warrants issued for searches of homes and warrantless searches of vehicles, the Tenth Circuit ruled that a trained officer's purported smell of methamphetamine manufacturing provided probable cause to obtain a warrant to search a residence. United States v. Windrix, 04-5016 (May 3, 2005). The opinion also approved the search of a vehicle despite the warrantless arrest of the driver and his detetnion for four hours while police obtained a warrant.

In United States v. Riccardi, No. 03-3132 (April 19, 2005), the Tenth Circuit held that the good faith exception applied to a warrant for a computer search. The warrant lacked sufficient particularity in that it authorized the seizure of a computer and a search of its complete hard drive. However, an individual officer's consultation with a district attorney about whether he needed a more specific warrant and a limited search of the computer files convinced the Tenth Circuit that the evidence discovered was properly admitted at trial.

In United States v. Williams, 04-7065 (April 18, 2005), the Tenth Circuit confirmed what criminal defense practitioners already know - the reasonable suspicion standard for highway detentions is low - really low. Extreme nervousness, conflicting stories about travel plans, the defendant's admitted exit from the highway to avoid the traffic stop and a "mad dash"(my description completely) to his car after the return of his documents combined to provide reasonable suspicion to detain for a dog sniff. The dog was riding with the state trooper. Once the dog provided a positive alert, probable cause existed to search.

In United States v. Trujillo, 04-4074(April 12, 2005), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of a parolee's motion to supress handguns seized from his home in a warrantless search of his home after his arrest. The Tenth Circuit rejected the defendant's argument that his arrest revoked his parole agreement and rendered unreasonable the subsequent warrantless search.

On April 6, 2005, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court denial of a motion to supress drugs recovered from the locked suitcase of a motorist. United States v. Santos, No. 03-8059. In Santos, the Tenth Circuit decided that a motorist's drug offenses and his denial of a criminal record when combined with vague and evasive answers to questions about travel plans, nervousness, and a rental car contract that would expire before the completion of his trip provided reasonable suspicion to detain the motorist for a drug dog arrival. The opinion placed heavy reliance on the defendant's "prior criminal history of several drug offenses".