Opinion ID: 2669152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conditions Contained in the Warrant

Text: “[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 -