Opinion ID: 621587
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Ms. Neighbors’ Motion to Suppress

Text: Ms. Neighbors contends that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence seized from her home because the affidavit in support of the warrant to search her home did not establish probable cause for the search. In her view, probable cause was lacking because the supporting affidavit did not show a nexus between the materials officers recovered during their trash pulls at her home and “any specific transaction involving property that was suspected of being stolen.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 14. “When reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government[,] . . . accept the district court’s factual findings unless . . . clearly erroneous,” and review de novo its determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Burkhart, 602 F.3d 1202, 1205 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Notwithstanding, our review of the probable cause ruling by the judge -7- issuing the search warrant is afforded “great deference.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] reviewing court’s only duty is to ensure that the [issuing judge] had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” United States v. Mathis, 357 F.3d 1200, 1205 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). An affidavit supporting a search warrant establishes probable cause for the warrant’s issuance “if the totality of the information [in the affidavit] establishes the fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Roach, 582 F.3d 1192, 1200 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not require “hard evidence or personal knowledge of illegal activity [to] link a Defendant’s suspected unlawful activity to his home.” United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272, 1279 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, “a sufficient nexus is established once an affidavit describes circumstances which would warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the articles sought are at a particular place.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The search warrants in this case were sought to investigate “the fencing of stolen property and attempted possession of stolen property.” R., Vol. 1 at 178 (affidavit in support of search warrants). To that end, the supporting affidavit set forth LPD Officer Rantz’s opinion that the evidence collected during the trash pulls at Ms. Neighbors’ home was “consistent with the selling and shipping of -8- posted eBay merchandise on the yellowhair-bargains web store indicating transactions [we]re being conducted at the Neighbors’ residence.” Id. at 165. The supporting affidavit also detailed the evidence collected in the trash pulls. This included: (1) eBay documents with the username Yellowhair Bargains, (2) two PayPal shipping labels from the Lawrence Yellow House to a California addressee, (3) one PayPal shipping label from the Lawrence Yellow House to an Alaska addressee, (4) a PayPal “create your own shipping label” listing the Lawrence Yellow House as the shipper, (5) an eBay document showing that payment for a computer had been sent to Ms. Neighbors’ email address, and (6) an envelope addressed to Ms. Neighbors at the Lawrence Yellow House. Mindful of our standard of review and applicable legal principles, the supporting affidavit provided the issuing judge a substantial basis for concluding that the materials identified in the warrant would be found in Ms. Neighbors’ home. 4 Further, the district court did not err in concluding that the supporting 4 As set forth in the search warrant, officers sought: [a]ny books, record sheets, receipts, check/check ledgers, eBay documents and other documentation recording the sale, delivery, and possession of items being sold or purchased by or through the [Lawrence Yellow House], including any . . . electronic data. The data stored on any computer, or removable media, located at the . . . residence[, and] [p]ersonal property tending to establish identities of person(s) in control of [the Lawrence Yellow House] (continued...) -9- affidavit, taken together with the reasonable inferences the issuing judge was allowed to draw, Biglow, 562 F.3d at 1280, provided probable cause to believe that the items sought might be found at Ms. Neighbors’ home. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Ms. Neighbors’ motion to suppress.