Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Search of his Vehicle - Page 1 of 7 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DAVID DEVANEY, JR. (02)

 No. 4:22-CR-213-P 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

THE SEARCH OF HIS VEHICLE 

In response and opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Search of 

his Vehicle, the government would show the following. First, the government does not 

believe a hearing is necessary for the Court to rule on the Motion because: (a) the good 

faith exception provides that “evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable 

good faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the affidavit on 

which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable cause.” United States 

v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992); and (b) the affidavit in the case 

establishes probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle. Second, these 

determinations can be made by the Court without a hearing because there are no material 

contested facts. 

I. Facts 

 On June 24, 2022, Officers with the Burleson Police Department responded to a 

shooting death that occurred in Burleson, Texas. (Affidavit, p. 3, para. 1.) One of the 

shooting victims who survived the shooting incident identified the defendant, Devaney, 

Jr., as the person who shot him. (Affidavit, p. 5, para. 21.) 

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 53 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 158
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Search of his Vehicle - Page 2 of 7

The survivor also described the drug-deal-gone-bad that immediately preceded the 

shooting incident. (Affidavit, pp. 4 – 5, para. 14 – 15, and 17.) Officers secured an 

arrest warrant for Devaney, Jr., based on the shooting. (Affidavit, pp. 5 – 6, para. 24.) 

On June 25, 2022, Officers found Devaney, Sr., and Cory Litts in possession of 

drugs and guns. (Affidavit, p. 6, para. 25.) At the same time, Officers saw the 

defendant, Devaney, Jr. drive by in a blue corvette, and a vehicle pursuit ensued. 

(Affidavit, p. 6, para. 28.) Devaney, Jr. fled on foot, but was arrested on the warrant. 

(Id.) In a post-Miranda interview, Devaney, Jr. admitted to acting as security for the 

drug deal his father had set up. (Affidavit, p. 6, para. 31.) And Devaney, Jr. admitted to 

witnessing Devaney, Sr. and others shoot at the other drug dealers who became shooting 

victims in the case. (Affidavit, p. 7, para. 34.) Another co-conspirator also said 

Devaney, Jr. was involved in planning the drug deal. (Affidavit, p. 7, para. 40.) That 

co-conspirator also said Devaney, Jr. shot at the shooting victims in the case. (Affidavit, 

p. 8, para. 43.) Based on this information (including the defendant’s flight from law 

enforcement), and the officer’s experience as summarized in paragraph 50 of the 

affidavit, the affiant concluded there was probable cause to believe evidence would still 

be found in the defendant’s car, the blue corvette. (Affidavit, p. 9, para. 51.) The 

evidence sought by officers related to the “implements or instruments” (e.g., guns and 

drugs) used in the crimes of murder and drug possession, and included the seizure of 

cellular telephones. (Affidavit, p. 2.) A neutral and detached magistrate judge agreed. 

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 53 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 159
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Search of his Vehicle - Page 3 of 7

II. Summary of the Defendant’s Argument

The Defendant argues that any good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does 

not apply because the affidavit “so lacked indicia of probable cause that the officers’ 

reliance on it was entirely unreasonable.” (Defendant’s Motion, p. 7.) Given the 

uncontested facts summarized above, this is a frivolous argument. 

III. Law and Argument 

A defendant seeking to have evidence suppressed generally bears the burden of 

proving by a preponderance of evidence that the evidence was seized illegally. See 

generally United States v. Waldrop, 404 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2015). The Fourth 

Amendment provides that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported 

by oath or affirmation.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “‘The bulwark of Fourth Amendment

protection’ is its requirement that ‘police obtain a warrant from a neutral and 

disinterested magistrate before embarking upon a search.’” United States v. Cavazos, 288 

F.3d 706, 709 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 164). “Evidence 

obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is to be excluded in any criminal 

proceeding against the victim of the violation.” Cavazos, 288 F.3d at 709.

However, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 

(1984) “that the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence 

obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant 

cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.” The Supreme Court, therefore, has 

carved out a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. 

The good faith exception provides that “evidence obtained by officers in objectively 

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 53 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 160
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Search of his Vehicle - Page 4 of 7

reasonable good faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the 

affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable cause.”

United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992). An officer relies on the 

validity of the search warrant in good faith “so long as the warrant is supported by more 

than a ‘bare bones affidavit.’” United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 435 (5th Cir. 1996). If 

the good faith exception applies, then the Court need not look at whether the warrant was 

supported by probable cause. United States v. Mays, 466 F.3d 335, 343 (5th Cir. 2006).

The Supreme Court, however, has identified several exceptions to the good faith 

rule, the one at issue being “where the affidavit is ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause 

as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable....” Leon, 468 U.S. at 

923. And less than a fortnight ago, in an en banc decision the Fifth Circuit had occasion 

to provide more guidance on what constitutes a bare bones affidavit. United States v. 

Morton, 2022 WL 3591841 (Aug. 22, 2022). In its anthological opinion, the Fifth 

Circuit defined bare bones affidavits as containing “wholly conclusory statements, which 

lack the facts and circumstances from which a magistrate can independently determine 

probable cause.” Id. at *3, citing United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 321 (5th 

Cir. 1992). An example of a bare bones affidavit “said nothing more than the agent ‘has 

cause to suspect and does believe that certain merchandise...has otherwise been brought 

into the United States contrary to law, and that said merchandise is now deposited and 

contained within’ the defendant’s home.” Id., citing Nathanson v. United States, 290

U.S. 41, 44 (1933). In addition, the Fifth Circuit provided a textbook example of a bare 

bones affidavit where “the officer listed just the defendant’s ‘biographical and contact 

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 53 Filed 08/30/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 161
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Search of his Vehicle - Page 5 of 7

information’ and then stated ‘nothing more than the charged offense, accompanied by a 

conclusory statement’ that the defendant committed the crime.” Id. at *4 (citation 

omitted.)

In contrasting Morton’s facts from those examples, the Fifth Circuit said the 

affidavits at issue had meat on their bones: each being over three pages in length, and 

detailing Morton’s arrest with drugs and cellular telephones. Id. at *4. The affidavits 

essentially explained the who, what, where, and when of the crime(s) alleged and how 

searching the things sought to be searched would yield evidence of those crimes. Id. 

And the affidavits put these facts before a neutral and detached magistrate. Id. Finally, 

in summarizing the overarching principle behind the good faith exception, the Fifth 

Circuit said a judge is called upon to make judgment calls; and “[j]udgment calls in close 

cases are precisely when the good-faith rule prevents suppression based on after-the-fact 

reassessment of a probable-cause determination.” Id. (citation omitted.) On those facts, 

the Fifth Circuit found the affidavits at issue were not bare bones affidavits, thus the good 

faith exception applied. Id. at *5. 

Similarly, here the affidavit to search the defendant’s car is nine pages long, it is 

extremely detailed, and it covers the who, what, where, and when of the crimes alleged to 

have been committed by the defendant. Specifically, the affidavit recounts: (1) a 

shooting and murder occurred in Burleson, Texas; (2) the defendant was involved in the 

shooting; (3) the defendant was also involved in a drug-deal-gone-bad that precipitated 

the shooting; (4) the day after the shooting, the defendant’s dad and another coconspirator were arrested with drugs and guns; (5) the defendant drove by and fled from 

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 53 Filed 08/30/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 162
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Search of his Vehicle - Page 6 of 7 

the scene of his father’s arrest; (6) officers eventually arrested the defendant; and (7) an 

officer presented these facts to a neutral and detached magistrate to search for 

implements or instruments of the crimes of murder and drug possession. These facts are 

vastly different from the textbook examples of bare bones affidavits anthologized by the 

Fifth Circuit in Morton. And as the Fifth Circuit concluded in Morton, a judgment call 

made by a neutral and detached magistrate court should not be disturbed after it has been 

presented with detailed facts such as those presented here. 

VI. Conclusion 

The Defendant’s motion is frivolous and presents no contest of fact. And for the 

foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion should be denied. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

CHAD E. MEACHAM 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 

 s/ Shawn Smith 

SHAWN SMITH

Assistant United States Attorney 

Texas Bar No. 24033206 

Burnett Plaza, Suite 1700 

801 Cherry Street, Unit #4 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

 Telephone: 817-252-5200 

 Facsimile: 817-252-5455 

 Email: Shawn.Smith2@usdoj.gov

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 53 Filed 08/30/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 163
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Search of his Vehicle - Page 7 of 7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on August 30, 2022, I electronically filed this document with the 

Clerk for the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic 

case filing (“ECF”) system. The ECF system will send a “Notice of Electronic Filing” 

to all parties/counsel for record who have consented in writing to accept the Notice as 

service of this document by electronic means. 

s/ Shawn Smith 

SHAWN SMITH

 Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 53 Filed 08/30/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 164