# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 17 88

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro be rto Carl os Orti z-Ce rv an te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 12, 2 01 7

Fil ed : Au gu st 21 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ro be rto Carl os Orti z-Ce rv an te s ap p e al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s

ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a r e s u l t of th e ex ecu ti on of a warra nt to se arch hi s res id en ce.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t d e n i e d t he m ot io n to su pp res s, Orti z-Ce rv an te s pl ed gu il ty 1

The Hon or ab le Ly le E. St ro m

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Neb ras ka

, ad op ti ng th e Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on o f t h e Hon or ab le Tho m as D.an d was co nv ic te d of po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0 g ram s or m or e of

m et ha m ph et am in e in v i o l a t i o n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 ). W e affi rm

,

co nc lu di ng pr ob ab le cau se su pp or te d th e se arch warra nt an d th e se arch was

co nd uc te d in go od fai th

, ev en th ou gh th e m ag is tra te jud ge is su in g th e se arch warra nt

wa s n o t p r o pe rly cr os s- de si gn at ed to is su e warra nt s fo r pr op ert y lo cat ed ou ts id e of

hi s d is tri ct . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 (ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ).

I. BACKGRO UND

On May 1 3, 20 14 , a Drug Enfo rcem en t Ad m in is tra ti on (DEA) s pe ci al ag en t,

Ch ad Sch m it t, fil ed an ap pl ic at io n an d su pp or ti ng a f fid av it fo r a se arch warra nt

be fo re a m ag is tra te jud ge in th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa (NDIa). The pr op ert y to

be se arch ed was a si ng le -fam il y res id en ce lo cat ed acro ss th e Mi ss ou ri Ri ve r in So ut h

Si ou x C it y , Nebr as ka

.

The affi da vi t de ta il ed te n co nt ro ll ed bu y s of m et ha m ph e t am in e fro m Vict or

Gon zal ez be twee n Sep te m be r 16

, 20 13

, an d May 13

, 20 14

. Ph on e reco rd s of cal ls

a nd te xt m es sa ge s be fo re th e co nt ro ll ed bu y s li nk ed Gon zal ez to Jo se W . Or el la n a

.

Orel la na was in co nt act wit h Orti z-Ce rv an te s be fo re th ree of th e te n co nt ro ll ed bu y s,

in di cat in g to DEA ag en ts Orti z-Ce rv an te s su pp li ed Orel la na wit h m et ha m ph et am in e,

an d Ore ll an a, in tu rn , su pp li ed Gon zal ez.

The affi da vi t al so st at ed O rti z-Ce rv an te s li ve d at 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t in

So ut h Si ou x Ci ty, Neb ras ka

. Orti z-Ce rv an te s sh ared th e res id en ce wit h hi s si st er an d

he r fam il y

, in cl ud in g he r hu sb an d, Orel la na ’s br ot he r. Orel l a n a vi si te d th e 33 08

San ta Rit a Co ur t res id en ce sh or tl y be fo re th e co nt ro ll ed bu y s o n Oct ob er 1 7, 2 01 3,

an d M ay 13 , 20 14

.

Tha lk en , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.

-2

-Age nt s co nd uc te d a pr of fer in te rv ie w on Nov em

be r 1 3

, 2 0 1 3, wit h Jo va ny

Ba utist a. Bau ti st a st at ed he ha d pu rch as ed m et ha m ph et am in e fro m “ Ro bert o” in ea rl y

20 13 an d id en t i f

i e d a ph ot og rap h of Orti z-Ce rv an te s as Ro be rto

. Bau ti st a al so

id en ti fie d a pi ct ur e of th e 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t res id en ce as on e of th e pl aces he m et

Ro be rto to pu rch as e m et ha m ph et am in e an d to ld ag en ts th at Ro be rto li ve d i n th e

ba se m en t o f th e res id en ce wh il e h is si st er an d h er fa m il y li ve d u ps ta irs

. 2

The NDIa m ag is tra te jud ge ap pr ov ed th e ap pl ic at io n an d is s u e d a se arch

warra nt fo r th e 33 08 San ta R i t a C ou rt res id en ce in So ut h Si ou x Ci ty, Neb ras ka

.

Offi cers ex ecu te d th e se arch warra nt an d f o un d Orti z-Ce rv an te s in th e ba se m en t

al on g wit h m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of m et h a mp he ta m in e. Orti z-Ce rv an te s was

su bs eq ue nt ly in di ct ed in th e Dis t r i c t of Neb ras ka on on e co un t of po ss es si on wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of a m ix tu re o r s u b s t a nc e co nt ai ni ng a

de te ct ab le am ou nt of m e th am ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d

(b )(1 ).

Befo re th e di st ric t co ur t an d a m ag is tra te ju d ge in th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

,

Orti z-Ce rv an te s m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a res ul t of th e se arch of

th e 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t res id en ce. Orti z-Ce rv an te s arg ue d th e NDI a mag i s t rat e

jud ge di d no t ha ve th e au th or it y to is su e warra nt s fo r se arch es of pr op ert y lo cat ed in

th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

, an d th e affi da vi t di d no t in cl ud e su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se

.

At th e la te r su pp res si on he ari ng

, Age nt Sch m it t te st ifi ed th ey ha d co nd uc te d 2

an earl ie r pr of

fer in te rv ie w wit h Bau ti st a on Sep te m be r 19

, 20 13

. At th is in te rv ie w,

Bau ti st a cl ai m ed he was no t su re who li ve d at 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t, bu t th ou gh t th e

pe rs on ’s na m e was Fran ci sc o or Ram on e. Bau ti st a al so to ld ag en ts “ he be li ev ed th at

th ere was so m eo ne co ok in g in th e area ,” an d ga ve a na m e ot he r th an Orti z-Ce rv an te s,

b ut Age nt Sch m it t cl ari fie d th is st at em en t was in refe ren ce to a co ok at a M e x i c a n

res ta ur an t, no t a co ok of m et ha m ph et a mi n e

. A g e nt Sch m it t di d no t in cl ud e th is

pr of fer i nt erv ie w in th e aff

id av it

.

-3

-The m ot io n to s u p p r es s was de ni ed

, an d Orti z-Ce rv an te s co nd it io na ll y pl ed gu il ty,

res erv in g t he rig ht to ap pe al th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

Orti z-Ce rv an te s ch a l l en ge s th e se arch warra nt on two gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, Orti zCerv an te s cl ai m s th ere was in su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se to su pp or t th e warra nt

.

Seco nd

, he as se rts th e se arch warra nt was in va li d be cau se th e NDIa m ag is tra te jud ge

was no t au th or iz ed to is su e warra nt s ou ts id e of hi s juri sd ic ti on

. “ On ap pe al fro m th e

de ni al o f a m ot io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s hi st or ic al fact ua l

fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s co nc lu si on s of la w on th e pr ob ab le cau se is su e de

no vo .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jea ne tt a, 53 3 F .3d 65 1, 6 54 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

A. Pro ba bl e Cau se

Pro ba bl e cau se to is su e a s e a r c h warra nt “ ex is ts

, if un de r th e to ta li ty of th e

ci rcu m st an ces

, a sh owi ng of fact s can be m ad e ‘suf fic ie nt to crea te a fai r pr ob ab il it y

th at ev id en ce of a cri m e wil l be fo un d in th e pl ace to be se arch ed .’ ” Uni te d St at es v.

Und erwo od

, 36 4 F.3 d 95 6, 96 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gab rio

, 29 5

F.3 d 88 0, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )), va cat ed on ot he r gr ou nd s su b no m Carp en te r v.

Uni te d S ta te s, 5 43 U.S. 11 08 (20 05 ) (m em .). The affid av it in su pp or t of the sea rch

w ar ra nt ap pli catio n he re de ta il ed te n co nt ro ll ed bu y s of m et ha m ph et am in e; ba ck -and

fo rth co m m un ic at io ns am on g Gon zal ez, Orel la na

, an d Orti z-Ce rv an te s, a res id en t of

33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t; vi si ts to 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t be fo re two c o n t ro ll ed bu y s;

an d a pr of

fer in te rv ie w in whi ch th e i n t e r v ie wee st at ed Orti z-Ce rv an te s so ld th e

in te rv ie wee m et ha m

ph et am in e at th e 3 30 8 S an ta Rit a Co ur t re si de nc e.

Orti z-Ce rv an te s arg ue s th e in fo rm at io n co nn ect in g him an d the re sid en ce to th e

co ns pi racy to se ll m et ha m ph et am in e was st al e. “ The re is no br ig ht -li ne te st fo r

de te rm in in g wh en in fo rm at io n in a warra nt is st al e.” Uni te d Stat es v. Pr un ed a, 51 8

F.3 d 59 7, 60 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 8 )

. “ A warra nt be co m es st al e if th e in fo rm at io n

su pp or ti ng th e warra nt is no t ‘suf fic ie nt ly cl os e in ti m e to th e is su an ce of th e warra nt

-4

-an d th e su bs eq ue nt se arch co nd uc te d so th at pr ob ab le cau se can be sa id to ex is t as of

th e ti m e of th e se arch

. ’” U n i t e d St at es v. Brewe r, 58 8 F.3 d 11 65

, 11 73 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Pal eg a, 55 6 F .3d 70 9, 7 15 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

The fir st co nt ro ll ed bu y t ha t co nn ect ed Orti z-Ce rv an te s to th e co ns pi racy

oc cu rred on Sep te m

be r 24

, 20 13 —al m os t ei gh t m on th s be fo re th e se arch warra nt was

is su ed an d th e se arch was co nd uc te d— an d th e pr of fer in te rv ie w in Nov em

be r 20 13

id en ti fie d Orti z-Ce rv an te s as sel li ng m et ha m ph et am in e m or e th an a y ear bef or e th e

se arch

. Howev er, jus t be fo re th e te nt h an d fin al co nt ro ll ed bu y —wh ic h oc cu rred th e

sa m e d a y ag en ts ap pl ie d fo r an d ex ecu te d th e se arch warra nt —Ore ll an a st op pe d at

th e 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t res id en ce on hi s way to Gon zal ez’s res id en ce, im m ed ia te ly

be fo re Go nz al ez m et th e u nd erco ve r of fic er.

“ ‘In in ve st ig at io ns of on go in g na rco ti cs op erat io ns

, in te rv al s of week s or

m on th s be twee n th e la st d e s cri be d act an d th e ap pl ic at io n fo r a warra nt [d o] no t

ne ces sa ril y

m ak e th e in fo rm at io n st al e,’” Je an et ta

, 53 3 F .3d at 6 55 (qu ot in g Un it ed

St at es v. Orti z

, 1 4 3 F

. 3 d 72 8, 73 2- 33 (2 d Ci r. 19 98 )), an d a “ la ps e of ti m e is le as t

im po rta nt whe n th e su sp ect ed cri m in al act iv it y is co nt in ui ng in na tu re an d whe n th e

pr op ert y is no t li ke ly to be de st ro y ed or di ss ip at ed ,” Uni te d St at es v. Lem on

, 59 0 F.3 d

61 2, 61 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hor n, 18 7 F.3 d 78 1, 78 6 (8 th Ci r.

19 99 )). Tho ug h dr ug s “ ‘can be eas il y co nc eal ed an d m ov ed ab ou t,’” Uni te d S ta te s

v. Bu tt on

, 65 3 F.2 d 31 9, 32 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 8 1 ) ( q uo ti ng Ash le y v. St at e, 24 1 N.E.2d

26 4, 26 9 (In d. 19 68 )), th e fact s he re de m on st rat e “ a co nt in ui ng pa tt ern of be ha vi or ”

su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau se ev en wit h m on th s- ol d in fo rm at io n, Pal eg a, 55 6

F. 3 d at 71 5. A s eri es of co nt ro ll ed bu y s sp an ni ng fro m m on th s to ho ur s be fo re th e

ap pl ic at io n fo r a se arch warra nt su pp or te d th e ag en ts ’ i n f e ren ce th at Gon zal ez,

Orel la na

, an d Orti z-Ce rv an te s had an on go in g con sp ira cy to se ll m et ha m ph et am in e

an d at le as t so m e tra ns act io ns oc cu rred at th e 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t res id en ce. See,

e.g

., Uni te d St at e s v

. C o l b ert

, 82 8 F.3 d 71 8, 72 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (rea so ni ng

in fo rm at io n ob ta in ed se ve ral m on th s be fo re th e ap pl ic at io n fo r a se arch warra nt was

-5

-no t st al e whe re th ere was ev id en ce of an on go in g c riminal en te rp ris e as rece nt ly as

th ree wee ks be fo re t he warran t ap pl ic at io n)

.

The ev id en ce tying 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t to th e co ns pi racy was no t th e

st ro ng es t— co m

m un ic at io ns wit h Orti z-Ce rv an te s b efo re s om e co nt ro ll ed bu y s, bu t

no t al l of th em

, vi si ts to th e r e s i de nc e Orti z-Ce rv an te s sh ared wit h Orel la na ’s

br ot he r’s fam il y

, an d a st at em en t Orti z-Ce rv a n t e s so ld m et ha m ph et am in e fro m th e

r es id en ce m or e th an a y ear be fo re th e se arch —b ut was su ffi ci en t to crea te “ a f a i r

pr ob ab il it y th at co nt r a b a n d o r e vi de nc e of a cri m e [wo ul d] b e fo un d in a pa rti cu la r

pl ace.” Ill in oi s v. Gate s, 46 2 U.S. 21 3, 23 8 (1 98 3)

. “ [W] e acco rd ‘sub st an ti al

d e f e r e nc e’ to th e jud ic ia l of fic er’s fin di ng ,” an d th e di st ric t co ur t was co rrec t i n

de nyin g Orti z-Ce rv an te s’s m ot io n to su pp res s th e ev id en ce fo r la ck of p r o ba bl e

cau se

. Uni te d St a t e s v. Garci a-Her na nd ez, 68 2 F.3 d 76 7, 77 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )

(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Buc ha na n, 5 74 F.3d 55 4, 5 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

B. Cro ss -Des ig na tio n o f the Ma gi st ra te J udg e

A m ag is tra te jud ge “ ha s au th or it y to is su e a warr an t t o s earc h fo r an d s ei ze a

pe rs on or pr op ert y lo cat ed wit hi n th e di st ric t” in whi ch th e jud ge si ts

. Fed

. R. Cri m

.

P. 41 (b )(1 ). The m ag is tra te jud ge in th is c a s e w h o i ss ue d th is warra nt sa t in th e

N o r t h e r n Dis tri ct of Io wa, whi le th e pr op ert y th at was th e su bjec t of th e se arch

warra nt was lo cat ed in th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

, ou ts id e th e NDIa m ag is tra te jud ge ’s

juri s d ic ti on

. Bu t a m ag is tra te jud ge can is su e warra nt s in an “ ad joi ni ng di st ric t”

“ [w]here t he [Ju di ci al ] co nf eren ce d eem s i t d es ira bl e.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 1( a).

Und er § 63 1( a), a m ag is tra te jud ge is cro ss -d es ig na te d to se rv e in an ad joi ni ng

di st ric t whe n th e Ju di ci al Co nf eren ce of t h e Uni te d St at es de si gn at es su ch a 3

The Ju di ci al Co nf

eren ce of th e Uni te d St at es is a co nf eren ce co nv en ed by th e 3

Ch ie f Ju st ic e of th e Uni te d St at es an d in cl ud es th e ch ie f jud ge of each jud ic ia l ci rcu it

an d th e Co ur t o f In te rn at io na l Trad e, an d a di st ric t ju dg e fro m each jud ic ia l ci rcu it

. See 28 U.S.C. § 33 1. At th e Co nf eren ce, th e jud ge s “ m ak e a co m pr eh en si ve su rv ey

-6

-m ag is tra te an d th e m ajor it y of th e jud ge s in each i n v o l ve d di st ric t co nc ur

. See id

.

“ Su ch a de si gn at io n sh al l be m ad e by th e co nc ur ren ce of a m ajor it y of th e jud ge s of

each of th e di st ric t co ur ts in vo lv ed an d sh al l sp eci fy th e du ti es to be pe rfo rm ed by th e

m ag is tra te jud ge in th e ad joi ni ng di st ric t or di st ric ts .” Id

. In a le tt er da te d Mar ch 23

,

20 00

, th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa rece iv ed no ti ce th at th e Ju di ci al Co nf eren ce ha d

vo te d to “ [d ]esig na te th e fu ll -ti m e m ag is tra te jud ge po si ti on at Si ou x Ci ty[, Io wa,] to

se rv e in th e ad

joi ni ng Dis tri ct of Neb ra s k a

. ” The m ag is tra te jud ge who is su ed th e

se arch warra nt was ap po in te d in 20 12 to fil l th e po si ti on th e Ju di ci al Co nf eren ce ha d

de si gn at ed

. See U.S. Dis t. Co ur t fo r th e N. Dis t. of Io wa, Pu b. Adm in

. Ord er No. 12

-

AO-00 02 -P (J un e 7 , 20 12 ).

Sect io n 63 1( a) req ui res an ad di ti on al st ep to cro ss -d es ig na te a m ag is trate jud ge

pr op erl y— t h e de si gn at io n m us t “ be m ad e by th e co nc ur ren ce of a m ajor it y of th e

jud ge s of each of th e di st ric t cou rts in vo lv ed .” 28 U.S.C. § 63 1( a). No ev id en ce of

su ch a co nc ur ren ce ex is ts in th e reco rd

. The go ve rn m en t ur ge s us to fin d th e req ui red

co nc ur ren ce is ev id en ced by th e ad m in is tra ti ve or de r ap poin ti ng th e m ag is tra te jud ge

.

Wh i l e magi st rat e jud ge s m ay be ap po in te d “ by t he co nc ur ren ce of a m ajor it y of a l l

th e jud ge s of [th e] di st ric t co ur t” in whi ch th e jud ge wil l si t, id

., th e ad m in is tra ti ve

or de r do es no t m en ti on w h e t h er th e NDIa jud ge s co nc ur red wit h th e Ju di ci al

C o nf eren ce’s vo te to cro ss -d es ig na te th e po si ti on

. See U.S. Dis t. Co ur t fo r t h e N

.

Dis t. of Io wa, Pu b. Adm in

. Ord er No. 12

- A O -0 00 2- P (J un e 7, 20 12 ). The

go ve rn m en t al so do es no t pr ov id e an y ev id en ce a m ajor it y of th e di st ric t jud ge s in th e

ot he r affe ct ed di st ric t, th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

, co nc ur red wit h th e cro ss -d es ig na ti on

.

of th e co nd it io n of bu si ne ss in th e co ur ts ,” “ pr ep are pl an s fo r as si gn m en t of jud ge s,”

an d “ su bm it su gg es ti on s an d reco m m en da ti on s to th e va rio us c o u rts to pr om ot e

uni fo rm ity of m an ag em en t pr oc ed ur es an d th e ex pe di ti ou s co nduc t of co ur t busi ne ss, ”

am on g o th er t hi ng s. Id

.

-7

-The m ag is tra te jud ge who is su ed th e warra nt in th e pr es en t cas e pl ai nl y was no t

pr op erl y cro ss -d es ig na te d u nd er t he req ui rem en ts of § 63 1( a) and th us di d no t hav e

th e au th or it y to is su e a se arch warra nt fo r pr op ert y lo cat ed in th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

.

It gr eat ly co nc ern s us th at a m ag is tra te jud ge ’s cro ss -d es ig na ti on wou ld no t be

ex ecu te d as req ui red by th e fed eral st at ut e, pa rti cu la rly be cau se m ag is tra te jud ge s

ob ta in th ei r au th or it y so le ly fro m th e st at ut e, as di st in gu is he d fro m Arti cl e III jud ge s,

who ob ta in th ei r au th or it y fro m Arti cl e III of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. See

28 U.S.C. § 63 6; cf. Gom ez v. Uni te d St at es

, 49 0 U.S. 85 8, 86 4- 71 (1 98 9) (d is cu ss in g

th e au th or it y gr an te d to m ag is tra te jud ge s un de r th e Fed eral Mag is tra te s Act,

28 U.S.C. §§ 63 1, et seq .). As wor ris om e as th is fai lu re m ay be , it do es no t re qu ire

su pp res si on of t he ev id en ce ag ai ns t Ort iz -Cer va nt es

.

A se arch warra nt is su ed by an im pr op erl y cro ss -d es ig na t e d m ag is tra te jud ge

is a vi ol at io n of Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 41

, bu t “ [a] Ru le 41 vi ol at io n ‘is

no t pe r se an un reas on ab le se arch an d se iz ur e in vi ol at io n o f t h e F o ur th

Am en dm en t.’” Uni te d St at es v. Hor to n, Nos

. 16 -3 97 6, 16 -3 98 2, 20 17 W L 31 22 07 3,

at *4 (8 th Ci r. Ju ly 24

, 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W el ch

, 81 1 F.3 d 27 5, 28 0 (8 th

Ci r

. )

, c ert

. de ni ed

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 24 76 (2 01 6) ). “ Abs en t a co ns ti tu ti on al in fir m it y

, th e

ex cl us io na ry ru le is ap pl ie d on ly to vi ol at io ns of Fed eral Ru le 41 th at pr eju di ce a

de fen da nt or sh ow reck le ss di sr eg ard of pr op er pr oc ed ur e.” Uni te d St at es v. Hy te n,

5 F.3 d 11 54

, 11 57 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). Orti z-Ce rv an te s do es no t cl ai m to be pr ejud ic ed

by th e te ch ni cal vi ol at io n whe re— as di sc us se d ab ov e—a m ag is tra te jud ge fo ll owe d

no rm al pr oc ed ur es an d fo un d pr ob ab le cau se

, an d th e se arch was ex ecu te d wit hi n th e

bo un ds of th e warra nt

. Yet whe n a m ag is tra te jud ge is su es a se arch warra nt ou ts id e

hi s juri sd ic ti on

, th at se arch warra nt is “inv al id at it s in cep ti on an d th eref or e th e

co ns ti tu ti on al eq ui va le nt of a warra nt le ss se arch .” Hor to n, 20 17 W L 31 22 07 3, at *4

(fi nd in g a warra nt is su ed by a jud ge in th e East ern Dis tri ct o f V i r g i n i a f o r us e of a

Netwo rk In ve st i g a ti ve Tech ni qu e to co ll ect in fo rm at io n fro m co m pu te rs lo cat ed

aro un d th e co un try vo id ab in it io ). Tho ug h t h e i s s u a n ce of a warra nt by an

-8

-im

pr op erl y cro ss -d es ig na te d m ag is tra te m ay le ad to a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, t he

ev id en ce d oe s n ot ne ces sa ril y ne ed to be su pp res se d.

Evi de nc e ob ta in ed du e to a vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t ge ne ral ly i s

in ad m is si bl e in a cri m in al t r i a l un de r th e ex cl us io na ry ru le —a “ jud ic ia ll y crea te d

ru le ” th at is “ ‘des ig ne d to sa feg ua rd Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s ge ne ral ly th ro ug h it s

de te rren t effe ct ’”—bu t th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s “ rep eat ed ly reject ed th e arg um en t th at

ex cl us io n is a ne ces sa ry co ns eq ue nc e of a Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n.” Herri ng v.

Uni te d St at es

, 55 5 U.S. 13 5, 13 9- 41 (2 00 9) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Cal an dr a, 41 4

U.S. 33 8, 34 8 (1 97 4) ). Evi de nc e ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of the Fo ur th Am en dm en t is

a d mi s s ib le if th e of

fic ers ex ecu ti ng an in va li d se arch warra nt di d so in go od fa i t h

.

See Uni te d St at es v. Leo n, 46 8 U.S. 89 7, 91 8- 19 (1 98 4)

. “ Und er th e go o d

- f a i t h

ex cep ti on , e vi de nc e se iz ed pu rs ua nt to a s e a r c h warra nt is su ed by a m ag is tra te th at

is la t e r d e t e r mine d to be in va li d, wil l no t be su pp res se d if th e ex ecu ti ng of fic er’s

rel ia nc e up on th e warra nt was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Pro el l, 48 5

F.3 d 4 27 , 43 0 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ).

The go od -fai th ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y whe re: (1 ) th e su pp or ti ng affi da vi t or

te st im on y in cl ud es “a f

a l s e st at em en t m ad e kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y or wit h

reck le ss di sr eg ard for th e tr ut h” to m is le ad th e is su in g judg e; (2 ) “ th e is su in g judg e

‘w h o l l y a b an do ne d hi s jud ic ia l ro le ’ in is su in g th e warra nt ”; (3 ) “ th e affi da vi t i n

su pp or t of th e warra nt is ‘so la ck in g in in di ci a of pr ob ab le cau se as to ren de r of fic ia l

be li ef in it s ex is te nc e en ti rel y un reas on ab le ’”; or (4 ) “ th e warra nt is ‘so faci al ly

de fic ie nt ’ th at no po li ce of fic er c o u l d reas on ab ly p res um e th e warra nt to be va li d.”

Id

. at 43 1 (em

ph as is om it te d) (q uo ti ng Leo n, 46 8 U.S. at 92 3)

. Orti z-Ce rv an te s

co nt en ds th e Leo n go od -fai th ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y he re be cau se th e is su in g jud ge

who ll y ab an do ne d hi s jud ic ia l ro le whe n he is su ed a se arch warra nt f o r p r o pe rty

lo cat ed ou ts id e o f hi s ju ris di ct io n.

-9

-“ [A] jud ge ab an do ns [h is or ] he r jud ic ia l ro le whe n [h e or ] sh e ‘doe s no t se rv e

as a ne ut ral an d de ta ch ed act or

, bu t rat he r as a ru bb er st am p fo r th e po li ce an d an

ad jun ct la w en fo rcem en t of

fic er.’” Uni te d St at es v. Lon g, 79 7 F.3 d 55 8, 56 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Carp en te r, 34 1 F.3d 66 6, 67 0 (8 th Cir . 20 03 )). W e

ha ve fo un d an is su in g jud ge who ll y ab an do ne d hi s ro le by fai li ng to read th e se arch

warra nt it se lf and fai li ng to reco gn iz e th e ap pl ic at io n was un si gn ed an d th e warra nt

di d n ot id en ti fy

th e p ro pe rty to b e se arch ed . See Un it ed Sta te s v . Deck er, 9 56 F.2d

77 3, 77 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Bu t he re, th e is su in g m ag is tra te jud ge di d no t act “ as a

ru bb er st am

p,” Lon g, 79 7 F.3 d at 56 7, an d in st ead ev al ua t e d a 3 2

- pa ge

affi da vi t— whi ch in cl ud ed su f fic ie nt de ta il to id en ti fy th e pr op ert y an d pr ov id e th e

req ui red pr ob ab le cau se —an d de te rm in ed su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d to is su e

th e warra nt

. The im

pr op er cro ss -d es ig na ti on an d res ul ti ng la ck of au th or it y to is su e

th e se arch warran t d oe s n ot m ean , in th is sp eci fic cas e, th e m ag is tra te jud ge who ll y

ab an do ne d h is jud ic ia l ro le

.

“ [T]he ex cl us io na ry ru le is de si gn ed to de te r po li ce m is co nd uc t rat he r th an to

pu ni sh th e erro rs of jud ge s an d m ag is tra te s.” Leo n, 46 8 U.S. at 91 6. Age nt Sch m it t

te st ifi ed he ap pl ie d fo r a se arch warra nt be fo re th e NDIa m ag is tra te jud ge “ [b ]ecaus e

[th e m ag is tra te jud ge was] cro ss -d es ig na te d,” an d Ag en t Sc hm it t, an d o th er ag en ts

,

ha d pr ev io us ly go ne to th at NDIa m ag is tra te jud ge to ob t a i n s e a rch warra nt s fo r

pr op ert y lo cat ed in th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

. The Ju di ci al Co nf eren ce of th e Uni te d

St at es ha d ap pr ov ed th e cro ss -d es ig na ti on an d no ti fie d th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa.

The m ag is tra te ju d g e an d th e ag en ts req ue st in g an d ex ecu ti ng th e se arch warra nt

be li ev ed in go od fai th th e m ag is tra te jud ge was au th or iz ed to is su e a se arch warra nt

fo r th e 33 08 San ta Ri ta Co ur t p ro pe rty, even th ou gh th e pr op ert y was lo cat ed in an

ad joi ni ng di st ric t. The ex cl us io na ry ru le do es no t ex is t to req ui re or ev en en co ur ag e

la w en fo rcem en t of

fic ers to se co nd gu es s th e au th or it y of jud ge s to is su e warra nt s.

W e rei te rat e th e req ui rem en ts of 28 U.S

. C

. § 6 31 (a) m us t be fo ll owe d whe n

cro ss -d es ig na ti ng fed eral m ag is tra te ju d g e s

. Bec au se th e m ag is tra te jud ge an d th e

-1 0-of

fic ers in vo l v e d i n t hi s warra nt be li ev ed in go od fai th th e m ag is tra te jud ge was

p ro pe rly cro ss -d es ig na te d, th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a res ul t of th e se arch wa s

ad m is si bl e ag ai ns t Ort iz -Cer va nt es

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-