United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2860

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Bradley Dean Mohring

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo

 ____________

 Submitted: April 16, 2020

Filed: July 7, 2020 

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 
Bradley Dean Mohring appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his motion to

suppress evidence, arguing that the search warrant for his residence was not

supported by probable cause. We affirm. 

I. Background

On the morning of October 9, 2018, Officer Stephen Johnson of the Nashua

Police Department learned that the Five Star Co-Op in Nashua, Iowa, had been

burglarized. During the burglary, the perpetrator entered the building through a

window and stole two computer towers. Video camera footage taken at 2:43 a.m. on

October 9, 2018, from the Five Star Co-Op showed a dog—specifically, a boxer—on

the side of the building, outside the door. The dog appeared to be on a leash. As the

dog walked in an arc to the north, an unidentifiable person’s hand and arm appeared.

That person then led the dog out of the frame. The video footage captured only one

other individual the night of the burglary. That person was identified as a company

mechanic who was not seen near the building. 

As part of the investigation, Chickasaw County Sheriff Martin Hemann spoke

to Rodney Macomber, a local resident. Macomber reported that “he had seen an

individual walking a dog on several occasions near the area.” Government Ex. 2 at

5, United States v. Mohring, No. 6:19-cr-02002-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa Feb. 20,

2019), ECF No. 18-1. Officer Johnson also spoke with Macomber, who confirmed he

had seen Mohring walking his dog regularly in the area and “described the dog in

question, specifically, the [dog’s] markings.” Id. at 6. Officer Johnson reviewed the

surveillance video from the Five Star Co-Op. Officer Johnson identified the dog on

the video as a boxer and “positively identif[ied] the dog as belonging to Bradley

Mohring.” Id.

1The Honorable Charles J. Williams, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa. 

-2-
Officer Johnson is a resident of Nashua, a town of about 1,600 people, where

he had been a patrol officer for four years at the time that he applied for the search

warrant at issue in this case. He had two years experience as a canine handler, had

grown up with dogs, and was familiar with boxers. Officer Johnson had also become

familiar with residents of the small community. Officer Johnson was aware that

Mohring advertised being an electric repairman and salesman. Mohring had a sign in

his window advertising the service. Officer Johnson was also personally familiar with

Mohring and his boxer. Officer Johnson had been involved in two previous searches

at Mohring’s residence. Officer Johnson “vividly recall[ed] the dog being present.”

Id. He also recalled Mohring calling the dog by name and speaking to it as if he were

the dog’s owner. Officer Johnson had regularly seen Mohring walking or driving

around town with the boxer.

In addition to seeing Mohring with the boxer, Officer Johnson also saw Dale

Brewer walking the same dog on the night before the alleged burglary near Mohring’s

residence. Officer Johnson learned that Brewer had been recently released from

custody. Brewer temporarily lived with Mohring while a court order prevented him

from returning to his usual residence. Officer Johnson confirmed Brewer was residing

with Mohring by reviewing Brewer’s state court criminal file in which Brewer

reported Mohring’s address as his place of residence. 

Officer Johnson prepared an application for a search warrant to search

Mohring’s residence consistent with the aforementioned information. An Iowa state

court judge signed the search warrant on October 9, 2018. Officers executed the

search warrant the following day. During the search, officers discovered computer

parts, including parts consistent with one of the towers of the Five Star Co-Op.

Relevant to this appeal, they also found a .22 caliber rifle and ammunition. Mohring

was a felon prohibited from possessing firearms; the rifle was located in his bedroom.

Mohring stated that he lived alone, but he acknowledged that Brewer stayed with him

for a short time. 

-3-
Mohring was indicted for one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Mohring moved to suppress the

evidence seized from his residence. The magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary

hearing on the motion. The government called Officer Johnson as a witness. Officer

Johnson’s testimony confirmed the facts contained in the affidavit in support of the

search warrant. The magistrate judge credited Officer Johnson’s testimony and found

that his “affidavit in support of the . . . search warrant established probable cause to

believe evidence relating to the burglary of the co-op would be found upon searching

[Mohring’s] residence.” United States v. Mohring, No. 19-CR-2002-CJW, 2019 WL

3368910, at *6 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 9, 2019), report and recommendation adopted in

part, rejected in part, No. 19-CR-2002-CJW-MAR, 2019 WL 2435680 (N.D. Iowa

June 11, 2019). Alternatively, the magistrate judge found “that the Leon good-faith

reliance exception[2] to the exclusionary rule applies.” Id. at *9. The district court

adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in part and denied

Mohring’s motion to suppress. Mohring, 2019 WL 2435680, at *5.

After the district court denied his motion, Mohring conditionally pleaded guilty

to being a felon in possession. The district court sentenced him to 12 months’

imprisonment. 

II. Discussion

On appeal, Mohring argues that the district court erroneously denied his motion

to suppress. Mohring argues that the following facts contained in the search warrant

affidavit were insufficient to establish probable cause to search his residence: (1) his

dog was seen in the area the night of the burglary, and (2) he was known to work on

computers. He contends that because the search warrant was so lacking in probable

cause, law enforcement’s reliance on the warrant was unreasonable and the Leon

good-faith exception does not apply.

2United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). 

-4-
“We review the district court’s factual determinations in support of its denial

of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” United

States v. Green, 954 F.3d 1119, 1123 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation omitted). “A

credibility determination made by a district court after a hearing on the merits of a

motion to suppress is virtually unassailable on appeal.” United States v. Dunn, 928

F.3d 688, 693 (8th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). 

“Under the Fourth Amendment, search warrants must be supported by probable

cause.” Green, 954 F.3d at 1122 (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV). “Probable cause

exists, if under the totality of the circumstances, a showing of facts can be made

sufficient to create a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the

place to be searched.” Id. at 1123 (internal quotations omitted). “[P]robable cause

may be established by the observations of trained law enforcement officers or by

circumstantial evidence . . . .” United States v. Jeanetta, 533 F.3d 651, 654 (8th Cir.

2008) (internal quotation omitted). 

Our task is to “determine whether the warrant’s issuing court had a substantial

basis for finding probable cause.” Green, 954 F.3d at 1123. “Judges may draw

reasonable inferences from the totality of the circumstances in determining whether

probable cause exists to issue a warrant.” United States v. Wallace, 550 F.3d 729, 732

(8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation omitted). “When the issuing judge

relied solely upon the supporting affidavit to issue the search warrant, only that

information which is found within the four corners of the affidavit may be considered

in determining the existence of probable cause.” United States v. O’Dell, 766 F.3d

870, 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (cleaned up). Our court affords “great deference

to the issuing court’s probable-cause determination.” Green, 954 F.3d at 1123. 

Here, the district court credited the testimony of Officer Johnson, including his

identification of the dog as Mohring’s boxer. See Dunn, 928 F.3d at 693. Officer

Johnson testified consistently with the facts set forth in the search warrant affidavit.

-5-
See O’Dell, 766 F.3d at 874. In that affidavit, Officer Johnson did more than simply

aver that Mohring’s dog was seen in the area the night of the burglary and that

Mohring worked on computers. Rather, Officer Johnson averred that there was only

one person known to be near the Five Star Co-Op at the time of the

burglary—whomever was walking the boxer. Officer Johnson positively identified

the boxer as Mohring’s dog. Officer Johnson averred that both Mohring and his

roommate had been seen walking the boxer in the area. The affidavit further provided

that Mohring also lived nearby and operated a business selling the types of items that

were stolen. In their totality, these facts sufficiently established probable cause to

search Mohring’s residence for evidence connected to the burglary. Because probable

cause existed, the district court did not err in denying Mohring’s motion to suppress.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

-6-