Opinion ID: 2669152
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Search Issues

Text: Finally, according to Pulliam, the police were required, under both Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(f)(1)(C) and the terms of the warrant, to provide him and his spouse with a copy of the search warrant contemporaneous with their search. He asserts “the police refused to provide either of them a copy of the warrant.” (Appellant Br. 6.) In his view, the police’s failure to honor these requirements should have led to the exclusion of any evidence resulting from the search. He is wrong.
There are two problems with Pulliam’s Rule 41 argument. First, it raises a question about the remedies available for a violation of Rule 41. As we have recognized, some violations of Rule 41 can lead to the suppression of evidence regardless of whether the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Sims, 428 -9- F.3d 945, 955 (10th Cir. 2005). Yet, to obtain suppression for such a violation, we require the defendant to show either “‘(1) there was prejudice in the sense that the search might not have occurred or would not have been so abrasive if the Rule had been followed, or (2) there is evidence of intentional and deliberate disregard of a provision in the Rule.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Pennington, 635 F.2d 1387, 1389-90 (10th Cir. 1980)). Here, Pulliam makes no attempt to show either prejudice or deliberate disregard of the Rule’s requirements. As such, he would not be entitled to suppression even if the Rule were violated. Second, as the government notes, Rule 41 does not apply to “state warrants.” (Appellee Br. 12.) See United States v. Bookout, 810 F.2d 965, 966-67 (10th Cir. 1987). It is correct. Rule 41 applies only “when federal officers are directly involved in carrying out the search itself and in taking immediate custody of the fruits of the search,” id.; see United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1090 (10th Cir. 2007), or “if from the beginning it was assumed a federal prosecution would result.” Barrett, 496 F.3d at 1091 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the warrant issued from a state court and state officers executed it; Pulliam does not claim any federal officers were involved in the search or that anyone assumed the search would lead to federal prosecution. Rule 41 does not apply.
“[A] search must be reasonable not only in its inception, but also in its execution.” United States v. Gordon, 741 F.3d 64, 70 (10th Cir. 2014); see Basham, 268 F.3d at 1204; see also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 (1977) (“The touchstone of - 10 - our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular invasion of a citizen's personal security.”) (quotation marks omitted and emphasis added). The warrant issued here required “a copy of this warrant . . . be left with the person whose premises or person is searched along with a list of any and all items seized at the time of its execution.” (R. Vol. 1 at 42.) Even assuming police violated this term of the warrant, Pulliam has again failed to explain why the remedy of suppression is legally justified. He merely assumes “[t]he police’s failure . . . to provide a copy of the warrant . . . renders the police’s search unreasonable.” (Appellant Br. 7.) We have acknowledged the violation of a warrant’s terms can make suppression appropriate even when a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. As we explained in Sims, when police violate the terms of a federal judge’s warrant, a court may suppress the resulting evidence, but, again, only when the violation was prejudicial or intentional. 428 F.3d at 955; see also United States v. Garcia, 707 F.3d 1190, 1196 (10th Cir.) (concluding federal standards also apply to violations of warrants issued by state court judges), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2875 (2013). For the fruits of this search to be suppressed, Pulliam would, at a minimum, have to show (1) the violation rendered the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, or (2) the violation was intentional or resulted in prejudice. He has failed to make either showing. He does not explain why—other than police’s failure to give him a complete copy of the warrant—the search was unreasonable. Given that the search was supported - 11 - by probable cause and a warrant issued properly limiting the scope of the search and adequately describing the items to be seized, we cannot see how the failure of a ministerial act—failure to include all attachments to the warrant—made the search unreasonable. As to the second required showing, Pulliam has made no attempt to show how the alleged violation was intentional or prejudicial to him. He is not entitled to suppression of the evidence from the search. Moreover, as we read the warrant, the police officers did not violate its terms. Nothing in the warrant expressly required them to provide Pulliam a copy of the warrant’s attachments. Although the better practice might have been to provide a complete copy of the warrant, including any attachments, the rationales at the core of the warrant’s requirement to provide a copy of the warrant are, as far as we can tell, to notify the target of the search that the police’s search occurred under the authority of a warrant and to apprise him or her of any property taken. See Grubbs, 547 U.S. at 98 (reasoning the search warrant’s list of the places to be searched and items to be seized is not intended to allow the persons targeted by the search to attempt to ensure officers’ compliance during the course of the search). After all, a complete copy of the warrant, including all attachments and a copy of the inventory are available in the files of the issuing judge and can be inspected for possible irregularities. A post hoc review of the warrant under judicial supervision is preferable to a confrontation with the police during an ongoing search. As the district judge found, the police “gave the face sheet of the warrant, with the inventory of the property taken, written on the back of the face sheet, to - 12 - defendant . . . .”3 (R. Vol. 2 at 149.) The documents Pulliam received satisfied the warrant’s command. AFFIRMED. 3 Since this finding is supported by the testimony of the detective who gave the warrant to defendant, we are bound by it. See Basham, 268 F.3d at 1203. - 13 -