Court Opinion

ID: 9649561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:01:16.928194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:56.738916
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-2850
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                              Robert D. Dankemeyer

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                      for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: May 12, 2023
                              Filed: August 23, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      When executing a search warrant on Robert Dankemeyer’s house, officers
found guns, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. Dankemeyer was charged
with possession with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and being a
felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). He moved to
suppress, and the district court 1 denied the motion. We affirm.

       The warrant affidavit detailed the following: Officers responded to a report
of a disturbance at a bar. According to witnesses, Dankemeyer was involved in the
disturbance, left the bar, and returned shortly after with multiple guns. He used one
of the guns to threaten several people. One witness directed the officers to a house
where three guns were recovered. According to the homeowner, a “known associate
of Dankemeyer,” one of the guns belonged to Dankemeyer. Video surveillance later
confirmed that Dankemeyer was at the bar during the disturbance.

      Based on this information, the issuing judge authorized a search of
Dankemeyer’s home, along with “any and all vehicles parked at the residence
belonging to the occupants,” for “[f]irearms, ammunition, and other weapons [that]
when possessed by a convicted felon, are illegal.”

       Search warrants must be supported by probable cause. United States v.
Mayweather, 993 F.3d 1035, 1040 (8th Cir. 2021). But we will not suppress
evidence if the good-faith exception applies—that is, “if it was objectively
reasonable for the officer executing [the] search warrant to have relied in good faith
on the judge’s determination that there was probable cause to issue the warrant.” Id.
at 1041 (citation omitted). See generally United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913–
17 (1984) (recognizing the good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment
exclusionary rule). The district court held that the search warrant was supported by
probable cause and, even if it wasn’t, the good-faith exception applied.

     We consider whether the good-faith exception applies “without addressing
whether probable cause exists,” United States v. Norey, 31 F.4th 631, 635 (8th Cir.

      1
       The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Cheryl R.
Zwart, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.
                                       -2-
2022), and review de novo the district court’s finding of good faith, Mayweather,
993 F.3d at 1040.

       The good-faith exception applies unless, as relevant here, “the affidavit in
support of the warrant is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official
belief in its existence entirely unreasonable” or “the warrant is so facially deficient
that no police officer could reasonably presume the warrant to be valid.” United
States v. Proell, 485 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up).

       Dankemeyer argues that the affidavit was “so lacking in indicia of probable
cause” because the witness accounts did not indicate a “fair probability” that guns
would be found at his home or in his car. See United States v. Warford, 439 F.3d
836, 841 (8th Cir. 2006). Relatedly, he argues that the affidavit failed to show a
nexus between the guns and the search of his home and car. See United States v.
Tellez, 217 F.3d 547, 550 (8th Cir. 2000) (“[T]here must be evidence of a nexus
between the contraband and the place to be searched before a warrant may properly
issue.”). But the affidavit referenced multiple witness statements, the gun recovered
from his associate’s home, and video evidence. Even if this did not “push this
warrant past the probable cause goal line,” United States v. Dankemeyer, No.
4:21CR3014, 2021 WL 7287669, at *5 (D. Neb. Dec. 13, 2021), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 4:21-CR-3014, 2022 WL 676714, at *1 (D. Neb. Mar.
7, 2022), there was enough information in the affidavit such that the officers’
reliance was not “entirely unreasonable,” Proell, 485 F.3d at 431.

       Dankemeyer also argues that the warrant was “so facially deficient” because
it authorized a search of all cars on his property. We disagree. The search was
limited to cars “belonging to the occupants,” so this case does not present an
“animating overbreadth concern.” See United States v. Eggerson, 999 F.3d 1121,
1125–27 (8th Cir. 2021) (distinguishing authority where a warrant, which broadly
authorized the seizure of electronic devices without regard to ownership, was so
overbroad that it rendered the good-faith exception inapplicable). The good-faith
exception applies, so the district court did not err.
                                         -3-
The district court is affirmed.
                 ______________________________

                             -4-