Opinion ID: 2814832
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Adams’ 2011 Trips to Canada

Text: The government also argues that Mr. Adams’ 2009 and 2011 trips to Canada would have created probable cause of gun smuggling. We disagree. According to the affidavit, Mr. Adams made only two trips within three years of the warrants. Both trips were in 2011. For one of these trips, Mr. Adams flew to and from Canada. It is unlikely that Mr. Adams could have smuggled guns through an airport, and the government has not suggested otherwise. 7 For the other 2011 trip, Mr. Adams flew to Canada but did not buy an airline ticket to return to the United States. Based on the absence of a return ticket, the government suggests that Mr. Adams drove back into the United States to smuggle a firearm, a Gevarm .22 LR caliber rifle. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 16 (Mar. 12, 2015). The government adds that if Mr. Adams smuggled one gun, the court could infer an intent to smuggle more guns later. Id. The government’s argument is waived and based on contradictory information. In its opening brief, the government referred to the missing Gevarm firearm. But the government did not argue that the court could infer a broader intent from the smuggling of a single gun. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 18-19, 27 (Dec. 3, 2014). Instead, the government waited to make this argument in the reply brief, which was too late. See United States v. Gregoire, 425 F.3d 872, 878 (10th Cir. 2005) (stating that an argument was waived when it had been newly raised in the appellant’s reply brief). The government’s argument is not only waived but also based on contradictory information. In one paragraph, the affiant lists the Gevarm as one of the guns seized from the Canadian storage unit. But in the next paragraph, the affiant states the Gevarm was missing from the guns seized. Compare Appellant’s App., vol. I, at 73, with Appellant’s App., vol. I, at 8 75. In light of the contradiction, the court would have no way of knowing whether the gun had been seized. In these circumstances, the 2011 trips to Canada would not contribute to a finding of probable cause.