T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h F ED . R. A PP . P. 32. 1 and 10 TH C IR . R. 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned ** unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of t hi s appea l . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( A )(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 5052 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) DANNY J AC KS ON F OUT CH ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 4 1 - 0 1 - HDC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. **

O n Sept ember 8, 2005, a fe der al gr and j ur yi ndi ct ed D annyJ acks on Fout ch forpos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 924( a) and 922( g) and pos s es s i on of an unr egi s t er ed s aw ed- off s hot gun i n vi ol at i on of 26 U .S .C . § 5 8 6 1 (d ). M r. F o u tch m o v e d to su p p re ss th e g u n o n th e g ro u n d s th a t it2

w as onl ydi s cover ed as t he r es ul tof an unc ons t i tut i onal s ear ch and s ei zur e. A ft er the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtin the N o rt h ern D istri ct of O k laho m a d en ied M r. Fout ch’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , M r . Fout ch pl eade d gui l t yon t he condi t i on t hathe coul d appea l . H e now as ks t hi s cour tt o r ever s e the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatt he Tul s a C ount ySher i ff’ s D epart m entdi d notvi ol at e hi s Four t h A m endment r i ghtt o be fr ee f

r om unr eas onabl e s ear ch and s ei zur e. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m . I . Backg r ound T he r ecor d and the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ngs r evea l t he fol l ow i ng: O n February11, 2005, atappr oxi m at el y9: 15 p. m . , t w o m ember s of t he T u lsa C o u n tyS h eriff ’s D ep artm en t gath ere d to se rve an arrest w arran t fo r M r. D a n n yF o u tc h fo r m a n u fa c tu ri n g m e th a m p h e ta m in e , fe lo n ye s c a p e , a n d la rc e n y . D ep u tyJeffe reyF ree m an an d R ese rve D ep u tyT h o m as P ay n e so u g h t t o arrest M r. Fout ch athi s hom e, a tr ai l ers i tuat ed i n a cl ear i ng about100 y ar ds nor t h of a rur al r oad i n B i xby , O kl ahoma. B eca us e M r . Fout ch had a hi s t or yof el udi ng author i t i es , D eputyPayne s t ay ed i n t he patr ol carand cove r ed the fr ontof t he hom e w hi l e D eputyFr eeman s ur vey ed the ar ea be hi nd t he tr ai l er . D eputyPayne then an n o u n ce d o v er the p atrol ca r’s l o u d -spe ak er tha t th eyh ad a w arran t fo r M r. F o u tch ’s a rre st a n d th a t M r. F o u tch sh o u ld c o m e o u t o f th e h o u se . A f

ter D e p u ty Payne made t he announc ement a s econd t i m e, M r . Fout ch’ s gi r l fr i end, B ut ch S h a tto , e m e rg e d f

ro m th e tr a ile r a n d d e c la re d th a t M r. F o u tc h w a s n o t h o m e .3

A ft err e- ent er i ng t he tr ai l erbr i efl y , M s . Shat t o r etur ned and i ndi cat ed M r . Fout ch w a s o n h is w a yo u t o f th e tr a ile r. A few m om ent s l at er , D eputyFr eeman s aw a w hi t e mal e dartoutt he bac k d o o r a n d sp rin t to w a rd th e w o o d s b e h in d th e h o u se . D e p u tyP a yn e jo in e d D e p u ty F ree m an in ch asin g the s u sp ec t w h en h e h ea rd D ep u tyF ree m an sh o u t, “S h eriff ’s O ffi ce, pu ty ou r hands u p!” O ut of a con cern for t heirow n safety , t he d epu t i es, w ho w er e unabl e t o i dent i fyt he s t r eaki ng fi gur e, chos e nott o pur s ue the s us pect in to th e th ic k e t. T he deput i es as ked M s . Shat t o, w ho had r emai ned on the por ch, w hether M r . Fout ch, w ho i s w hi t e, w as t he per s on w ho had run t o t he w oods . She r epl i ed th a t s h e d id n o t k n o w . T h e ya ls o a s k e d h e r i f a n y o n e e ls e w a s s till i n th e h o m e . M s . Shat t o w as nots ur e. D eputyPayne then arr es t ed M s . Shat t o forharbor i ng a f u g iti v e a n d c a lled fo r b a c k -u p . A f ter D e p u tyM ich a e l E lli o t ar riv e d , D e p u ty P a yn e tra n sp o rte d M s. S h a tto a n d h e r d a u g h ter a w a yf ro m th e sc e n e , an d D e p u ty Fr eeman and D eputyE l l i ots ear ched the tr ai l erforM r . Fout ch. I n t he pr oces s of l ooki ng forM r . Fout ch, D eputyFr eeman found a duffl e bag f ul l of m en’ s cl ot hes a n d a s a w e d -o ff

s h o tg u n lyin g n e x t to it in p la in v ie w .

I I . D i s cus s i on T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts th e rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in th e ir p e rs o n s , h o u s e s , p a p e rs , a n d e ffe c ts . U .S . C ONST . a r t . I V. T h i s c o u r tr e v i e ws de novo t he ques t i on of w hethert he governm enthas vi ol at ed a c i t i zen’ s r i ght s under4

th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. Uni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez , 9 3 F .3 d 1 4 9 3 , 1 4 9 8 (1 0 th C i r . 1996) . I n t he cont extof a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e cons i derevi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pr evai l i ng par t y , and w e w i l l notdi s turb a di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s fin d in g s o f

fa c t a b s e n t c le a r e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. C her om i ah , 455 F. 3d 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 2 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n P ayton v. New York , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hat“an a r r es tw arr ant founded on pr obabl e ca us e i m pl i ci t l ycarr i es w i t h i tt he l i m i t ed author i t yt o ent er a dw el l i ng i n w hi ch the s us pectl i ves w hen ther e i s r eas on t o bel i eve the s us pect i s w i t hi n. ” 445 U . S. 573, 603 ( 1980) . A s t he C our texpl ai ned i n St eagald v. Uni t ed Stat es , “[b] eca us e an a r r es tw arr antauthor i zes t he pol i ce t o depr i ve a per s on of hi s l i ber t y , i tnece s s ar i l yal s o author i zes a l i m i t ed i nvas i on of t hat per s on’ s pr i vacyi nt er es tw hen i ti s nece s s aryt o arr es thi m i n hi s hom e. ” 451 U . S. 204, 214 n. 7 ( 1981) . I n Valdez v. McP heters , t his cou rtheld t hat an arr est w arr antcoul d s uppor tt he s ear ch of a dw el l i ng w her e ( 1) t he dw el l i ng i s t he s us pect ’ s hom e and w her e ( 2) t he pol i ce ha ve an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bel i ef that t he s us pect“coul d be found w i t hi n att he t i m e of e nt r y . ” 172 F. 3d 1220, 1225 (10t h C i r. 19 99 ). B ecause M r. F ou t ch h as not chal l eng ed the vali dityof the arr est wa r r a n t , we fo c u s o u ri n q u i r yo n wh e t h e rt h e g o v e r n me n ts a t i s fi e d t h e t wo cr i t er i a thi s cour tar t i cul at ed i n Valdez . T he fi r s tpr ong i s s at i s fi ed bec aus e ther e i s no di s put e thatt he tr ai l erw as M r . Fout ch’ s hom e. T he s econd pr ong i s al s o s at i s fi ed bec aus e the deput i es had a5

“ re a s o n a b le b e lie f” th a t M r. F o u tc h w a s in th e re s id e n c e . Id . I n Valdez , this cour tconcl uded thatoffi cer s ent er i ng a s us pect ’ s dw el l i ng w i t h an arr es tw arr ant need nothave a ctual know l edge thathe i s hom e; r ather , t heym us thave a n

“ o bje c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le ” b e lie f th a t h e is p re s e n t. Id . T he courtemphasi zed that “ac tual vi ew i ng of t he s us pecton t he pr emi s es i s notr equi r ed. I ndeed, t he o ffice rs m a ytak e in to a c c o u n t th e fa c t th a t a p e rso n in v o lv e d in c rim in a l ac tiv ity m aybe att empt i ng t o conce al hi s w her eabout s . ” Id . at 12 2 6 (cit ati o n o m itted). H e re , the d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t M s. S h a tto ’s e q u iv o c a tin g re sp o n se s to th e d e p u ties ’ q u e stio n s a b o u t M r. F o u tch ’s w h e re a b o u ts g a v e th e m a re a so n a b le b a s is to b e lie v e h e w a s lu rk in g in th e tr a ile r. M r . Fout ch’ s br i ef t o t hi s cour tm akes m uch of the fa ctt hatt he deput i es saw a w h it e m ale b o lto u t of the b ac k d o o r of

the trail er b efo re the sea rch . M r. F o u tc h a rg u e s th a t th is d e m o n s tr a te s th e d e p u tie s k n e w h e w a s n o t in th e tr a ile r. Y et , as t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded af t erhear i ng evi dence , t he deput i es di d not know t he i dent i t yof t he fl eei ng s us pect . C om m on s ens e di ct at es t hatone engage d i n a cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e s uch as m anufa ctur i ng m ethamphet ami ne may w e ll h a v e a ss o c iate s a ss istin g w ith th e p ro c e ss . M o re o v e r, as w e n o ted in Valdez ,

“ o ffice rs m a ytak e in to a c c o u n t th e fa c t th a t a p e rso n in v o lv e d in c rim in a l ac tiv ity m a yb e a tte m p tin g to c o n c e a l h is w h e re a b o u ts ” in h is h o m e . Id . H en ce , the m ere fac tt hata w hi t e mal e s curr i ed fr om M r . Fout ch’ s hom e does notpr ecl ude the deput i es fr om havi ng a r eas onabl e bel i ef thatM r . Fout ch coul d s t i l l be i n t he6

tr a ile r. I I I . C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of M r . Fout ch’ s m ot i on to s u p p re s s .
E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge