United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-51061

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Kristopher Dean Putnam, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:21-CR-115-1 

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Defendant-Appellant Kristopher Dean Putnam was charged with one 

count of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

2252(a)(2), and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). Evidence leading to his indictment was 

seized during the execution of a search warrant that authorized officers to 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 13, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-51061 Document: 00516964657 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023
No. 22-51061

2

search his cellphone for evidence related to the offense of capital murder. 

Putnam moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the execution of 

the search warrant. The district court denied his suppression motion, and he 

pleaded guilty plea to both counts, reserving his right to appeal the 

suppression ruling. On appeal, Putnam contends that the search warrant (1) 

lacked indicia of probable cause that a crime was committed, (2) failed to 

connect his cellphone to criminal activity, and (3) was overbroad and lacked 

the requisite particularity because it authorized officers to search the entire 

contents of his cellphone. Because the good-faith exception to the 

exclusionary rule applies, we affirm.

On April 26, 2020, Travis County, Texas dispatchers were notified 

that a trailer was on fire in the city of Austin, Texas. Following firefighters’ 

efforts to extinguish the fire, a woman’s body—later determined to be Dana 

Crocker-Norman—was found in the wreckage of the trailer. CrockerNorman’s boyfriend, Billy Wayne Hope, III, was informed of the fire and 

arrived on the scene. Hope reported that he had been at the trailer earlier in 

the day and that, when he left, Putnam was asleep under a tree adjacent to 

the trailer. During their investigation into Crocker-Norman’s death, officers 

determined that Putnam had provided false information about his 

whereabouts on the day of the fire and concluded that his cellphone might 

contain evidence that could aid in establishing his location around the time of 

the blaze. In the affidavit supporting the search warrant, affiant Detective 

Nathan Matteson outlined (1) Putnam’s inconsistent statements regarding 

his whereabouts, which Putnam himself later admitted were false, (2) the 

statements and corroborating evidence provided by another witness who was 

with Putnam that day and contradicted Putnam’s version of events, and (3) a 

Fire Marshal’s evaluation of Putnam’s statements about the fire. The 

affidavit laid out the scope of the requested search, including global position 

system location data, text messages, photographs, and videos stored on 

Case: 22-51061 Document: 00516964657 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2023
No. 22-51061

3

Putnam’s phone. It also included the procedures to be used for handling the 

data stored on the phone. A state judge in Travis County subsequently issued 

the search warrant.

In an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the 

district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for 

clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing 

party. United States v. Jarman, 847 F.3d 259, 264 (5th Cir. 2017). A factual 

finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has “a definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Scroggins, 

599 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2010). 

If the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, we may

affirm without further inquiry. United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882, 888 

(5th Cir. 2004). However, the good-faith exception does not apply if, inter 

alia, (1) the affidavit is “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render 

official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable” or (2) the warrant is so 

facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or things 

to be seized that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be 

valid. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “[T]he determination of the reasonableness of 

a law enforcement officer’s reliance upon a warrant issued by a magistrate for 

purposes of determining the applicability of the good-faith exception to the 

exclusionary rule” is a question of law that we review de novo. Jarman, 847 

F.3d at 264 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted).

Contrary to Putnam’s assertions, the affidavit contained more than 

wholly conclusional statements. Instead, it provided specific facts and 

circumstances that allowed the issuing judge to make a probable-cause 

determination regarding the search of the cellphone. See United States v. 

Morton, 46 F.4th 331, 336-38 (5th Cir. 2022). The totality of the 

Case: 22-51061 Document: 00516964657 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2023
No. 22-51061

4

circumstances confirm that the affidavit is not bare bones. See id. at 337. For 

example, it set forth facts indicating that Putnam had provided false 

information about his whereabouts shortly after the fire, and it included a Fire 

Marshal’s evaluation of Putnam’s statements that contradicted his version 

of events. Additionally, Putnam has not shown that the search warrant was 

impermissibly overbroad and has therefore failed to show that the warrant 

was so facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or 

the things to be seized that the executing officers could not reasonably 

presume it to be valid. See United States v. Triplett, 684 F.3d 500, 505 (5th 

Cir. 2012); see also Leon, 468 U.S. at 923.

Because the executing officer’s reliance on the warrant was 

objectively reasonable and made in good faith, we uphold the district court’s

rejection of Putnam’s challenge to the good-faith exception. See Morton, 46 

F.4th at 338; see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700 (1996). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-51061 Document: 00516964657 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/13/2023