N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. HOW ARD OR

AN EM B R

Y, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-30110 D.C . No. 1:14-c r-00021-SPW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W a tte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding C aroly n S. Ostby , M a gistra

te Judge Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . The Unite d State s a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a dopting the findings a

nd
re c o m m e ndations of a

fe de ra l m a gistra

t e judge and gra

nting Howa

rd Em bry ’ s m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C
. § 3731. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED SEP 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. “ A se arc h wa rra nt is supporte d by proba ble c a use if the issuing judge finds tha t, give n a ll the c irc um sta

nc e s se t forth in thea ffidavit be fore him . . . the re is a fa ir proba

b ility tha t c o ntra ba nd or e vide nc e of a

c rim e will be found in a pa rtic u la r pla c e . ” Unite d State

s v . Unde rw ood , 725 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). “ W e give gre a t de fe re nc e to a

n issuing judge ’ s finding tha t proba ble c a use supports a

wa rra nt a nd
re vie w suc h findings for c le ar e rror.” Id. a t 1081 (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d). Polic e offic e rs ha d no re a son othe r tha n the unc o rroborate d , a

n o nym ous tip to suspe c t tha

t Em bry wa s in re c e nt re c e ipt of a tra ffic k ing a

m o unt of m a

rijua na .

“ [A] n a nony m o u s tip is e ntitle d to little or no w e i ght in a proba b le c a use e va luation if it is e

ntire ly unc orroborate d a

nd la c ks a ny indic a t ion of re lia

bility .” Unite d State s v . C lark , 31 F.3d 831, 834 (9th C i r. 1994) (e m pha sis a dde d). He re , the anony

m ous tip wa s first c onve y e d to Em bry ’ s a pa rtm e nt m ana ge r who the n re la

y e d the inform a tion to the polic e offic e rs. The an ony m ous tip
c onve y e d a

pa uc ity of inform a tion. Thetip did not m e ntion Em

bry by nam e , sta te how the drugs a

rrive d at his a

pa rtm e nt, or e xpla i n how the inform ant a c quire d this inform a t ion. The anony

m ous tip did not de s c ribe any future m ove m e nts tha

t c ould

2be c o rroborate d a nd the polic e offic e rs did not c orroborate the a lle gations m a de in the t ip. W he n the offic e rs a

rrive d a t Em bry ’ s a pa rtm e nt the y

e m ploy e d what the y c a ll the “ knoc k

and ta lk” a

pproa c h. In re sponse , Em bry ope ne d the door of his
a pa rtm e nt a nd he e nga ge d in a

c onve rsa tion with the

offic e rs. Em

b ry a c knowle dge d tha

t he ha d a m e dic a l m arijua

na c ard and posse sse d a pe rsona l-use
am ount of m arijua

na , one ounc e or le s s. The offic e r’ s “ knoc k a nd ta lk” doe s not c onstitute inde pe nde nt c orroboration be c a use Em bry ’ s c o nfirm a tion tha

t he ha d a
m e dic a l m arijua

na c ard and posse sse d a pe rsona l-use am ount of m arijua n a is not suffic i e nt to c onfirm

the an o nym ous inform ant’ s sta te m e n t c onc e rning te n pounds of m arijua

na . Se e C l ark , 31 F.3d a

t 834 (“ M e re c onfirm a tion of innoc e n t sta tic de ta ils in a

n a nony m ous tip doe s not c o nstitutec orroboration.” ); s e e also Unde r w o od , 725 F.3d a

t 1082 (holding tha

t offic e rs’ knowle dge of pe rsona l-use
am ount of m arijua

na “ c e rta inly

doe s not indic a te that [de fe nda nt] is a n e c sta sy traffick e r .” (e m pha s is in original)). B e c a use unre lia

b le , unc orroborate d tips a re e ntitle d to little

or no we ight whe n de te rm ining whe the r the re is proba ble c a use to support issua

n c e of a se arc h
warra n t, it wa s re a sona

ble for the distric t c ourt to e xc ise the anony m o us tip from its proba ble c a use an a ly sis. Thus, the

offic e rs did not ha

ve proba ble c a use to 3se arc h for e vide n c e of drug tra ffic king a t Em bry ’ s a pa rtm e nt. 1 The re a fte r, the offic e rs obta ine d a

se arc h wa

rra nt. 2. “ W he the r a

se arc h wa

rra nt de sc ribe s ite m s to be se iz e d with suffic ie nt spe c ific ity

is re vie we d de novo.” Unite d State s v . Re e v e s , 210 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th C ir. 2000). He re , the se arc h wa rra n t fa ils to m e e t the re quire m e nts of the te st se t out in Unite d State

s v . Spilotro , 800 F.2d 959, 963 (9th C ir. 1986), for de te rm i ning whe the r a

wa rra nt is “ suffic ie n t ly

pre c ise .” As in Spilotro , the se arc h
warra n t he re “ a

uthoriz e [d] whole sa le se iz ure s of e ntire c a te gorie s of ite m s not ge ne ra lly e v ide nc e of c rim ina l a c tivity , a nd provide [d] no guide l ine s to distinguish ite m s use d la

wfully from those the gove rnm e n t ha d proba ble c a use to se iz e .” Id. a t 964. It is c le a

r that the se arc h wa

rra nt he re wa s a im e d at unc ove ring e vide nc e of drug tra ffic king, e v e n though proba ble c a use did not e xist to support a se arc h for
e vide nc e of drug tra ffic k ing. The wa rra nt pe rm i tte d se iz ure of da n ge rous drugs,

“ inc luding but not lim

ite d to m e tha

m phe t am ine , c o c a i ne , m arijua na an d e c sta sy , [and] Drug Pa

ra phe rna lia a s de fine d in” M o nta na sta tute s. It furthe r a

uthoriz e d
se iz ure of “ [b] ooks, re c ords, re c e ipts, note s, le dge rs, a n d othe r pa

pe rs re lating to

1 Proba ble c a use , if it e xiste d, wa s lim ite d only to Em bry ’ s unla wful posse s sion of a

pe rsona l use am ount of m arijua na without a pe rm it. 4the t

ran sporta tion, orde ring, purc ha sing, tra ffic king, posse s sion, of c ontrolle d substa nc e s.” It a

uthoriz e d se iz ure of a ll c om m unic a tions te c hnology and re c ords
use d “ t o fa c ilita

te drug tra

nsa c tions with . . . c

ustom e rs a

nd/or suppliers.” It
a uthoriz e d se iz ure of a ll re c ords of Em bry ’ s tra ve l. The wa

rra nt dire c te d offic e rs to se iz e a ddre ss books a

nd othe r re c ords of “pe rsons to whom da nge rous drugs have be e n de l ive re d to or obta ine d from ,” a s we ll a s a ny re c ords tha

t c o uld be use d to ide ntify

c ustom e rs. It a

uthoriz e d se iz ure of a ll of Em

bry ’ s fina nc ia l re c ords. The wa rra nt e ve n a

uthoriz e d the se iz ure of any and a ll photogra

p hs a nd digita l
m e dia tha t c ould storephotogra

phs. Offic e rs we re e ntitle d unde r the se arc h
warra n t to se iz e Em

bry ’ s phone s a

nd a ll of his phone

re c o rds. La stly , the wa

rra nt pe rm itte d se iz ure of a

ny we a p ons found in the

re side nc e . B e c a use “ the wa

rra nts he re do not de sc ribe the ite m s to be se iz e d with suffic i e nt pa

rtic ula rity ,” the “ warra nts [a

re ] inva lid be c a

use of the ir ge n e ra l te rm s.” Id
. 3. The norm a l re m e dy for an ove rbroa d wa

rra nt is to se ve r those portions that are ove rbroa d, but our pre c e de nt doe s “ n o t a llow se v e ranc e or pa rtia l suppre ssion whe n the va lid portion of the wa rra nt is a re lat ive ly insignific ant pa

rt of an othe rwise inva lid se a rc h.” Unite d State

s v . SDI Future

He alth, Inc
. , 568 F.3d 684, 707 (9th C ir. 2009) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Give n tha t the 5portions of the warran t a im e d at tra ffic k ing a

re e ithe r inse pa

ra ble from or pre d om inate ove r the m e re posse ssion a lle gations, we c annot e m ploy se ve ranc e in this c a s e and the wa

rra n t is inva lid. 4. W e have “ re fuse d to suppre ss e vide nc e obta ine d unde r an inva lid wa

rra nt if the offic e rs obta ining thewa rra nt a nd pe rform ing the se arc h re l ie d in good fa ith on the wa rra nt’ s va lidity
. ” C

lark , 31 F.3d a

t 835. W e “ a sk not wha

t the e xe c uting offic e r be lie ve d , or c o uld ha ve be lie ve d, but whe the r a re a sona bly we ll tra ine d offic e r would ha

ve known tha

t the se arc h wa s ille ga l de s pite the m a gistra te ’ s a uthoriz ation.” Unite d State s v . Luong , 470 F.3d 898, 902 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). “ [T] he inquiry is one of obje c tive re a sona ble ne ss.” C lark , 31 F.3d a

t 835. Ye t, the good fa i th e xc e ption c annot be use d to re sc ue a se arc h wa

rra nt tha t is fa c ia lly ove rbroa d, suc h a s the one a t issue he re . 2 Se e Spilotro , 800 F.2d a t 968. 5. B e fore a

pply ing the e x c lusiona

ry rule , we c onside r “ (1) whe t he r suppre ssion would a ffe c t

the group c onduc t tha

t the e xc lusiona

ry rule wa s de signe d to punish, i.e ., polic e m isc onduc t; (2) the sourc e of the e rror in the

2 W e c annot a

pply the good fa ith e xc e ption he re be c a use the offic e rs did not a c t in good fa ith whe n the y “ se iz e d e vide nc e to the full e x te nt of a n ove rbroa d warra n t” by

se iz ing e vide n c e of drug tra ffic king, whe n the re wa s not proba

ble c a use to support a

se a rc h for e vide nc e of drug tra ffic king. C f. Unite d State

s v . Luk, 859 F.2d 667, 677-78 (9th C ir. 1988) 6pa

rtic u la r c a se and whe the r any

e v ide n c e sugge ste d tha

t the sourc e , e .g., issuing
m a gistra te s, wa s inc line d to ignoreor subve rt the Fourth Am e n dm e nt; a nd (3) the ba sis for be lie ving the e xc lusion of e vide nc e will ha ve a signific ant de te rre nt e ffe c t upon the sourc e of the e rror.” Luk, 859 F.2d a t 675 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd
c ita tions omitte d). All thre e e le m e nts c ounse l in fa v or of a pply i ng the
e xc lusiona

ry rule he re . B e c a use of the ir re lia

nc e on the unc o rroborate d , a nony m ous tip, polic e offic e rs c ra fte d a

wa rra nt for drug tra ffic king a nd c a rrie d out a se arc h a im e d at unc ove ring e v i de nc e of drug tra ffic king. First, suppre ssion would punish the polic e offic e rs’ m i sc onduc t. Se c ond, a ll of the e rrors in this c a se arise from the
c onduc t of the polic e offic e rs be c a use the sourc e of the e rror wa s the offic e rs’
re lia nc e on the unc orroborat e d, a nony m ous tip. Third, a

de c ision a ffirm ing the distric t c o urt will ha

ve the signific ant de te rre nt e ffe c t on polic e m isc onduc t tha t the
e xc lusiona

ry rule is m e ant to provide
. AFFIRM E D.

7Unite d

State s v . Embry , No. 14-30110 OW ENS, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. 1. Ac c ording to the m a

jority , “ Polic e offic e rs ha d no re a son othe r tha n the
unc orroborate d, a

nony m ous tip to suspe c t

tha t Em bry wa s in re c e nt re c e ipt of a tra ffic king a

m ount of m arijua

na .” Ye t this ignore s two c ruc ia l fa c t s. First, the
a pa rtm e nt m ana g e r sa id tha

t she sm e lle d

m arijua n a c om ing from

the a pa rtm e nt. Se c ond, Em

b ry a dm i tte d tha

t he ha d m arijua

na , but only

for his own use . No la

w re quire d the offic e rs to buy Em bry ’ s story . The la

w is spe c ific a l ly

to the c ontra

ry ; polic e are not re quire d to disprove a suspe c t’ s innoc e nt e xp la

nations. Se e

, e .g. , Illinois v . Gate

s , 462 U.S. 213, 243 n.13 (1983) (“ [I] nnoc e nt be havior fre que ntly will provide

the ba sis for a

showing of proba

ble c a use . . . .” ). Inde e d, ba se d on the tip, the y ha d e ve ry

re a son to disbe lie ve Em

bry . The m a

jority ne ve r e xpla ins why the o ffic e rs ha d to fa ll for this bogus story
. B a se d on the tip, thesm e ll, a nd Em bry ’ s own words, the offic e rs we re e ntitle d to re l y

in good fa ith on thewa

rra nt’ s va lidity . While the se thre e fa c ts obviously do not e sta

blish be y ond a

re a s ona ble doubt tha

t Em bry wa s tra ffic king
na rc otic s , proba

b le c a use re quire s fa

r le ss. Se e Gate

s , 462 U.S. a

t 238, 246 (Proba ble c a use e xists if “ give n a ll the c irc um sta n c e s . . . , the re is a fa ir proba bility 

# FIL ED SEP 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

1that

c ontra ba nd or e vide n c e of a

c rim e will be found in a

pa rtic ula r pla c e . . . . [P] roba ble c a use doe s not de m a

nd the c e rta inty

we a ssoc i a te with form a l tria ls.” ). The good-fa ith doc trine re quire s le ss still onc e a ne utra l m a gistra

te judge ha s issue d a se arc h wa

rra nt. Se e Unite d State

s v . Le on , 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984) (offic ia ls m ay

re ly on a prope rly issue d wa

rrant unle ss it is “ so la c king in indic ia of proba b le c a use a s to re n de r offic ia l be lie f in its e xiste nc e e ntire ly unre a sona

ble ” (quoting Brow n v . Illinois , 422 U.S. 590, 611 (1975) (Powe ll, J., c onc urring in pa rt)) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). Im a gine the following fa c ts: An a pa rtm e nt m ana ge r re c e ive s a tip tha t a n a pa rtm e nt is be ing use d to a

buse c hildre n. She he ars y oung c hildre n c ry ing for he lp. W h e n the polic e ta lk to thete na nt, he a d m its tha t the re are y oung c hildre n in his a pa rtm e nt (a n d the y are not his), but sa

y s he is running a

m ode ling a g e n c y

for
m inors who oc c a s iona l ly

be c o m e sc a

re d a nd c ry . Appa

re ntly the m a jority would
sa y tha t the offic e rs, if the y e x e c ute d a se arc h wa

rra nt ba se d on the se fa c t s, would be a c ting in ba d fa ith. I know of no Suprem e C ourt de c ision tha t supports this
a pproa c h
. 2. The m a j ority a lso invoke s Unite d State s v . Spilotro , 800 F.2d 959 (9th C ir. 1986), to swe e p the se ve ra bility issue off the Fourth Am e ndm e nt c he ssboa rd. B e c a use the c orroborat e d tip supporte d good fa ith re lia

nc e on the m a gistra

te 2judge ’ s de te rm ination tha t the re wa s proba

ble c a use of drug tra ffic k i ng, the
m a jority ’ s c onc lusion tha

t the wa rra nt is fa c ia lly ove rbroa d c annot sta n d. And
e ve n if the m a

j ority is c orre c t tha

t the offic ia ls we re not e n title d to re ly on the
warra n t a s to drug tra ffic king be c a use the y witne sse d

only sim p le posse ssion, Spilotro doe s not a

pply be c a use e vide nc e of m a

rijua n a posse ssion form e d a signific ant, se ve ra

ble pa rt of the se arc h wa

rra nt. Se e Unite d State

s v . SDI Future He alth, Inc
. , 568 F.3d 684, 707 (9th C ir. 2009)
. “ B e c a use the re c o rd doe s not
re fle c t a fla grant ge ne ra l se arc h,” any “ viola tion [doe s not] re quire [] suppre s sion of
a ll of the e vide n c e se iz e d .” Unite d State s v . Se daghaty , 728 F.3d 885, 915 (9th C ir. 2013). W e m u st a pply the e xc lusiona

ry rule in the rare st of oc c a sions. Se e Hudson
v . Mic higan , 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006) (“ Suppre s sion of e vide nc e . . . ha s a lwa y s be e n our la st re sort, not our first im pulse .” ). Obviously , this wa s not a pe rfe c t inve stiga tion, but im

pe rfe c tion doe s not e qua l suppre ssion. Se e He rring v . Unite d State s , 555 U.S. 135, 144 (2009) (“ [T] he e xc lusiona ry rule se rve s to de te r de libe ra t e , re c kle ss, or grossly ne glige nt c o nduc t . . . .” ). W e should re ve rse the suppre ssion orde r.

3