United States v. Alexander Faulkner
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11689
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Sept–Oct 2013 Minneapolis police received an in-person tip from a confidential reliable informant (CRI) that Alexander Faulkner trafficked heroin from Chicago; CRI provided two addresses and vehicle descriptions. Officers corroborated vehicle ownership, addresses, and observed the vehicles and Faulkner at those locations.
- A magistrate issued a warrant to install a GPS tracking device on one of Faulkner’s vehicles (authorized for placement in Hennepin County); officers installed the device on an Avalanche while it was in Ramsey County and the GPS showed trips to Chicago.
- After surveillance and another trip from Chicago, officers stopped Faulkner on Oct 22, 2013, seized keys and a small amount of marijuana; same week they obtained and executed search warrants for the vehicle and the Hamline and James Avenue residences and found heroin, firearms, and ammunition in a locked bedroom.
- Faulkner was later arrested (Jan 14, 2014) at an Irving Avenue residence; officers observed ammunition and obtained a warrant to search that residence.
- Indicted for being a felon in possession of firearms/ammunition (ACCA) and possession with intent to distribute heroin; moved to suppress evidence and to compel disclosure of the CRI; motion denied; convicted on felon-in-possession counts (heroin charge hung), sentenced to 280 months under ACCA.
- On appeal Faulkner contested probable cause for the GPS and search warrants, the GPS’s installation outside the geographic limit, non‑disclosure of the CRI, and whether two prior 1996 federal drug convictions count separately for ACCA purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Faulkner's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for GPS warrant | Affidavit was "bare bones"; CRI details insufficient; corroboration only of innocent facts | CRI reliability plus independent corroboration of cars/addresses supported probable cause | Warrant was supported by probable cause under the totality of circumstances; magistrate had substantial basis |
| GPS installed outside warrant county | Installation in Ramsey County (not Hennepin) violated Jones and made installation warrantless / invalid | Geographic misplacement was a technical/state-law error, not a Fourth Amendment violation here | Geographic error did not require suppression; installation valid under circumstances |
| Probable cause for residential and vehicle warrants | Warrants lacked probable cause; information stale; inconsistencies between affidavits | CRI information plus GPS corroboration showed ongoing trafficking; affidavits timely and independent | Warrants supported by probable cause; staleness/inconsistency arguments rejected |
| Disclosure of CRI identity | Denial violated Sixth Amendment confrontation / defendant needs identity to challenge case | CRI was a mere tipster who provided no testimony or direct evidence at trial | Court did not abuse discretion—CRI was not material witness; disclosure not required |
| ACCA predicate counting of two 1996 drug convictions | Two 1996 convictions arose from same indictment and should count as one for ACCA | The conspiracy and the possession-with-intent convictions involved distinct conduct/episodes | Two prior drug convictions counted separately; ACCA enhancement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause based on informant tips)
- United States v. Lucca, 377 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2004) (deference to issuing magistrate’s probable-cause determination)
- United States v. Freeman, 897 F.2d 346 (8th Cir. 1990) (technical violations in warrant execution do not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Bach, 310 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2002) (state-law violations in search execution are not grounds for suppression absent a Fourth Amendment violation)
- United States v. Willoughby, 653 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2011) (simultaneous/essentially single criminal episode convictions should be treated as one for ACCA purposes)
- United States v. Melbie, 751 F.3d 586 (8th Cir. 2014) (conspiracy conviction and separate punctuated conduct within that conspiracy can count as separate ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Crenshaw, 359 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2004) (informant who is only a tipster and not a necessary witness need not be disclosed)