Court Opinion

ID: 9896585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 19:00:35.507338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:08.459693
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51061        Document: 00516964657             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-51061
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              November 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Kristopher Dean Putnam,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:21-CR-115-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Defendant-Appellant Kristopher Dean Putnam was charged with one
   count of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
   2252(a)(2), and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of
   18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). Evidence leading to his indictment was
   seized during the execution of a search warrant that authorized officers to

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51061      Document: 00516964657           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/13/2023

                                     No. 22-51061

   search his cellphone for evidence related to the offense of capital murder.
   Putnam moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the execution of
   the search warrant. The district court denied his suppression motion, and he
   pleaded guilty plea to both counts, reserving his right to appeal the
   suppression ruling. On appeal, Putnam contends that the search warrant (1)
   lacked indicia of probable cause that a crime was committed, (2) failed to
   connect his cellphone to criminal activity, and (3) was overbroad and lacked
   the requisite particularity because it authorized officers to search the entire
   contents of his cellphone.       Because the good-faith exception to the
   exclusionary rule applies, we affirm.
          On April 26, 2020, Travis County, Texas dispatchers were notified
   that a trailer was on fire in the city of Austin, Texas. Following firefighters’
   efforts to extinguish the fire, a woman’s body—later determined to be Dana
   Crocker-Norman—was found in the wreckage of the trailer. Crocker-
   Norman’s boyfriend, Billy Wayne Hope, III, was informed of the fire and
   arrived on the scene. Hope reported that he had been at the trailer earlier in
   the day and that, when he left, Putnam was asleep under a tree adjacent to
   the trailer. During their investigation into Crocker-Norman’s death, officers
   determined that Putnam had provided false information about his
   whereabouts on the day of the fire and concluded that his cellphone might
   contain evidence that could aid in establishing his location around the time of
   the blaze. In the affidavit supporting the search warrant, affiant Detective
   Nathan Matteson outlined (1) Putnam’s inconsistent statements regarding
   his whereabouts, which Putnam himself later admitted were false, (2) the
   statements and corroborating evidence provided by another witness who was
   with Putnam that day and contradicted Putnam’s version of events, and (3) a
   Fire Marshal’s evaluation of Putnam’s statements about the fire. The
   affidavit laid out the scope of the requested search, including global position
   system location data, text messages, photographs, and videos stored on

                                           2
Case: 22-51061      Document: 00516964657           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/13/2023

                                     No. 22-51061

   Putnam’s phone. It also included the procedures to be used for handling the
   data stored on the phone. A state judge in Travis County subsequently issued
   the search warrant.
          In an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the
   district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for
   clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing
   party. United States v. Jarman, 847 F.3d 259, 264 (5th Cir. 2017). A factual
   finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has “a definite and firm
   conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Scroggins,
   599 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2010).
          If the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, we may
   affirm without further inquiry. United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882, 888
   (5th Cir. 2004). However, the good-faith exception does not apply if, inter
   alia, (1) the affidavit is “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render
   official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable” or (2) the warrant is so
   facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or things
   to be seized that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be
   valid. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). “[T]he determination of the reasonableness of
   a law enforcement officer’s reliance upon a warrant issued by a magistrate for
   purposes of determining the applicability of the good-faith exception to the
   exclusionary rule” is a question of law that we review de novo. Jarman, 847
   F.3d at 264 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted).
          Contrary to Putnam’s assertions, the affidavit contained more than
   wholly conclusional statements. Instead, it provided specific facts and
   circumstances that allowed the issuing judge to make a probable-cause
   determination regarding the search of the cellphone. See United States v.
   Morton, 46 F.4th 331, 336-38 (5th Cir. 2022).              The totality of the

                                          3
Case: 22-51061      Document: 00516964657           Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/13/2023

                                     No. 22-51061

   circumstances confirm that the affidavit is not bare bones. See id. at 337. For
   example, it set forth facts indicating that Putnam had provided false
   information about his whereabouts shortly after the fire, and it included a Fire
   Marshal’s evaluation of Putnam’s statements that contradicted his version
   of events. Additionally, Putnam has not shown that the search warrant was
   impermissibly overbroad and has therefore failed to show that the warrant
   was so facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or
   the things to be seized that the executing officers could not reasonably
   presume it to be valid. See United States v. Triplett, 684 F.3d 500, 505 (5th
   Cir. 2012); see also Leon, 468 U.S. at 923.
          Because the executing officer’s reliance on the warrant was
   objectively reasonable and made in good faith, we uphold the district court’s
   rejection of Putnam’s challenge to the good-faith exception. See Morton, 46
   F.4th at 338; see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700 (1996).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          4