Opinion ID: 156393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Applicability of Leon

Text: In Leon, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule would not apply when an officer acted “in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant.” 468 U.S. at 922. The Court emphasized that the exclusionary rule is aimed at deterring police rather than judicial misconduct, and the rule should be invoked only in cases in which it would deter police misconduct. See id. at 918-21. The applicability of Leon is a question of law 2 The Supreme Court has never ratified anticipatory search warrants and has not addressed the Leon good-faith exception in this context. -6- which we review de novo. See United States v. Corral-Corral, 899 F.2d 927, 929 (10th Cir. 1990). It is well settled in this circuit that the Leon good-faith exception does not apply to an improperly executed warrant. See United States v. Moland, 996 F.2d 259, 261 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Medlin, 798 F.2d 407, 410 (10th Cir. 1986)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1057 (1994). “Unlike cases in which the police properly execute an invalid warrant that they reasonably thought was valid, in cases of improper execution there is police conduct that must be deterred.” Medlin, 798 F.2d at 410. The question then is whether the execution in this case was in accordance with the terms of the warrant. See Moland, 996 F.2d at 261. Because this warrant was an anticipatory one, my analysis differs slightly from other cases analyzing the execution of the warrant. I do not address the traditional questions relating to the execution of a warrant. 3 Instead, I am confronted with the essence of the dubiousness of anticipatory search warrants: The occurrence of future events or conditions which are often in the exclusive 3 Generally, challenges to warrant execution ask whether the scope, intensity, and duration of the warrant execution were excessive; whether certain items not named in the warrant were properly seized; whether certain persons were properly detained or searched incident to execution of the warrant; whether the warrant was executed in an untimely fashion; or whether officers’ entry without prior notice of authority and purpose was permissible. See Medlin, 798 F.2d at 410 (citing Wayne R. LaFave, “The Seductive Call of Expediency”: United States v. Leon, It's Rationale and Ramifications, 1984 U. I LL . L. R EV . 895, 915-16). -7- control of the executing officers and which are relied upon, but not observed, by the magistrate judge in his probable cause determination. The Inspector’s fidelity in the execution of those future conditions is the only thing that even arguably can support the claim that this warrant was either validly issued or validly executed. I cannot see how the majority can conclude that “the officers complied with the conditions in executing the warrant,” ante, at 26, when the essential sworn conditions failed. The execution of the warrant was invalid and prevents the application of Leon. In analyzing the conditions to the warrant, courts read the descriptions in warrants and their supporting documents “in a ‘commonsense’ fashion.” United States v. Gendron, 18 F.3d 955, 966 (1st Cir.) (quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 (1965)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1051 (1994); see United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1116-17 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1069 (1994); see also United States v. Tagbering, 985 F.2d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 1993) (construing warrant and supporting affidavit “fairly” and in “‘commonsense’” manner) (citation omitted). Courts also recognize that the “conditions governing an anticipatory warrant [should be] ‘explicit, clear, and narrowly drawn’” to preserve the magistrate judge’s role in determining probable cause. Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d at 12 (quoting Garcia, 882 F.2d at 703-04); see Gendron, 18 F.3d at 965. The conditions in this case were stated in the affidavit -8- supporting the warrant. See Hugoboom, 112 F.3d at 1087 (holding valid conditions for execution of the warrant which are “constitutionally satisfactory,” “stated in the affidavit that solicits the warrant,” and “accepted by the issuing magistrate”). I therefore look at the context in which the warrant was issued to determine the nature of these conditions and whether they communicated a clear, simple directive to the executing officers. See Gendron, 18 F.3d at 966-67 (reviewing affidavit’s description of where future triggering event would occur). In this case, Inspector Carr’s affidavit supporting the warrant stated two essential conditions which must occur before the anticipatory warrant is executed. The first condition required that the “package [would] be kept under surveillance by [Inspector Carr] and/or other law enforcement officers until it [was] received at the residence located” at the named address. Appellant’s App. at 95. The second condition pledged that the search warrant would be executed only when the package was “received by an individual at the residence described and only when brought into the residence.” Id. These two conditions are inextricably linked; both had to be satisfied for the warrant to be properly executed. Several factors surrounding the procurement of the search warrant and the beeper order support the inescapable conclusion that the beeper surveillance was necessary to the proper execution of the warrant. The Inspector testified at the suppression hearing that his applications for the search warrant and beeper order -9- were presented and issued on the same day, see id. at 67, and the warrant and order indicate that they were both valid for the same duration. See id. at 78, 97. It is more than likely that the same magistrate judge issued both the order and the warrant. The reasonable inference is that both the Inspector and the magistrate judge knew that the beeper would be used to maintain surveillance of the package. More importantly, in light of what was represented to the magistrate judge and the sting operation as implemented, see Gendron, 18 F.3d at 966-67, the only reasonable meaning of maintaining “surveillance” of the package, Appellant’s App. at 95, is that the officers would, until the package was received at Defendant’s residence, either maintain visual watch over the package or observe and ascertain the package’s whereabouts by using the electronic monitoring device. See Bianco, 998 F.2d at 1117-24 (analyzing surveillance of oral communications by a roving electronic bug). Continuous surveillance was necessary to determine when the package was actually brought to the place to be searched, Defendant’s residence. See Gendron, 18 F.3d at 967 (discussing importance of surveillance to execution of warrant). This common-sense interpretation is supported by the facts alleged in the warrant and beeper order affidavits. See id. at 966-67. The Inspector represented to the magistrate judge that he had visually observed Defendant on three prior occasions picking up his -10- mail and returning to his place of employment. The Inspector also pledged to the magistrate judge that the beeper was “required to ensure that the material in the package [was] not lost and to assist in identifying the perpetrator.” Appellant’s App. at 81-82. It is irrelevant that the method of surveillance was not explicitly mentioned on the face of the warrant, or in its supporting affidavit, because the only means of maintaining surveillance of the package that were reasonably foreseeable to the magistrate judge when he issued the search warrant and the only means employed during the sting operation were through the use of the beeper or by visual observation. See id. at 46, 51. Although the officers could keep the package within their sight when Defendant carried the package from the post office box to his place of employment, it was impossible to maintain surveillance during the sting operation as executed without the benefit of the beeper once Defendant entered the building in which he worked. The beeper was, therefore, essential to the execution of the warrant because it provided the sole means of tracking the package after the officers lost sight of it. The officers obviously anticipated losing the ability to maintain visual surveillance over the package because they planned for that contingency as evidenced by their seeking an order authorizing the use of the beeper. The necessity of the beeper to the proper execution of the warrant is -11- corroborated by the manner in which the sting operation occurred. Inspector Carr delivered the package with two video tapes and the hidden beeper to Defendant’s private post office box. The Inspector and his team of law enforcement officers then watched the post office box from the moment the package was delivered until Defendant picked it up fifteen minutes later, at about 10:30 a.m. The officers followed Defendant by visual observation and by tracking the package with the beeper as he walked back to his place of employment. On his way back to work, Defendant opened the package which triggered the accelerated alarm in the beeper. See id. at 49. When Defendant left during lunch time, the beeper indicated that he had left the package in his place of employment. We know from the Inspector’s testimony at the suppression hearing that before Defendant left his place of employment for the day the beeper had stopped functioning because the batteries had died. See id. at 50. From that moment until Inspector Carr asked Defendant the location of the package, the officers had no idea where the package and its contents were. The condition that the “package [would] be kept under surveillance by [Inspector Carr] and/or other law enforcement officers until it [was] received at [Defendant’s] residence” had irreparably failed. 4 See id. at 95 (emphasis added). Before the officers ever 4 Because courts should interpret descriptions in warrants and their supporting documents in a “‘commonsense’ fashion,” see Gendron, 18 F.3d at 966 (citation omitted), I need not decide whether a momentary lapse of surveillance -12- entered Defendant’s home, they knew that they had not satisfied the surveillance condition represented to the magistrate judge, which was the only means by which the magistrate judge could determine that, at some point in the future, there would be probable cause to believe that the tapes would be transferred to Defendant’s home. When Defendant left work at about 4:30 p.m., carrying a backpack and a white plastic grocery sack, 5 the officers saw neither the package which had previously contained the video tapes nor the tapes themselves. Although the officers could neither see nor electronically track the package, they followed Defendant to his residence. It is undisputed that the officers did not observe Defendant carrying the video tapes or package into his residence. They did not know whether he had the video tapes. In fact, the only thing the officers knew was that, just before the beeper failed, the probable location of the tapes was Defendant’s place of employment, if indeed any probability existed in the affidavits reviewed by the magistrate judge. 6 When the first condition, surveillance of the package, failed, the warrant would mean the failure of the surveillance condition. In this case there was a significant period of time when the package was not under surveillance as promised to the magistrate judge. 5 The record does not indicate whether Defendant had brought the backpack and white plastic sack to his place of employment earlier that day. 6 I emphasize that nothing reported to the magistrate judge indicates that the Inspector observed Defendant going from his mailbox to his home or taking his mail to his home at the end of the day. -13- could no longer be validly executed. When the beeper died and the officers could no longer see the package, the magistrate judge’s determination that probable cause would arise in the future, based upon the satisfaction of the conditions represented to him, was null and void. The officers’ continued surveillance of the package until they determined that it was received at the place to be searched was a condition essential to the execution of the warrant. See Gendron, 18 F.3d at 967. This condition was unfulfilled, and the procuring and executing officers had full knowledge of this deficiency when they executed the warrant. The majority’s contention that the officers had satisfied the conditions of the warrant by entering Defendant’s residence and asking whether the tapes were located in the residence ignores the fact that a condition represented to the magistrate judge and necessary to the warrant’s proper execution had already been violated. The Inspector knew that the warrant had no vitality even before he went to Defendant’s residence because the surveillance condition had not been met; nothing could breath life into the search warrant or revive the absence of probable cause to support that warrant. The only means of satisfying the first condition to the warrant had failed, and any new information obtained or observations made by the officers during the sting operation misappropriated the magistrate judge’s probable cause determination. The majority’s ratification of this improper execution of the warrant authorizes the transfer of the probable cause -14- determination to the executing officers based on information not represented to the magistrate judge. Inspector Carr proceeded with the absolute discretion that the Fourth Amendment and the magistrate judge’s probable cause determination are intended to prevent. See Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d at 20-21 (Torruella, J., concurring). Because the execution was not in accordance with the conditions of the warrant, see Moland, 966 F.2d at 261, Leon should not be applied to prevent the suppression of illegally seized evidence.