153 F.4th 1069
10th Cir.2025Background
- Acorn Storage employees found Unit 3992’s door ajar and observed guns, scales, baggies, and a white crystalline substance; employees alerted police.
- Officer Doyle peeked his head into the unit; Officer Lemmons later entered the unit and opened a drawer before obtaining a warrant.
- Lemmons’ warrant affidavit described (a) ambiguous reports from Acorn employees and (b) precise observations (white crystalline substance, baggies, scales, firearms) from his warrantless entry.
- A state judge issued a warrant; Unit 3992 search recovered ~4 lbs meth and several firearms. Lemmons then obtained a separate warrant for Blasdel’s home; search yielded >300 g meth and additional guns.
- District court denied Blasdel’s motion to suppress; Blasdel pleaded guilty with a reservation to appeal. The Tenth Circuit reversed, suppressing both searches’ evidence, vacating the conviction, and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Blasdel's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the officers’ pre‑warrant entries/searches of the storage unit Fourth Amendment violations? | Entry/peek were unreasonable searches that violated Fourth Amendment. | Actions were lawful given employee observations/plain view or consent implied by rental policy. | Officers’ peek and Lemmons’ entry were unreasonable Fourth Amendment searches. |
| Does the storage‑unit warrant affidavit establish probable cause after excising information derived from unlawful searches? | No — remove Lemmons’ observations and affidavit lacks particularized probable cause. | Affidavit (including employee reports) supplied probable cause. | After excising tainted statements, the remaining affidavit fails to establish probable cause. |
| Does the good‑faith exception save the storage‑unit search? | No — affidavit was facially deficient; officers could not reasonably rely on it. | Yes — officers reasonably relied on a magistrate’s warrant. | Good‑faith exception does not apply; affidavit was so deficient reliance was unreasonable. |
| Is the house search warrant tainted as fruit of the poisonous tree; does good faith apply? | House warrant relied on fruits of prior unlawful search and must be suppressed. | Even if deficient, officers acted in objective good faith in executing the house warrant. | House warrant rests on tainted evidence; probable cause fails after excision and good faith does not apply; evidence suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (warrantless search principles)
- United States v. Lowe, 117 F.4th 1253 (10th Cir. 2024) (privacy expectation in storage units)
- United States v. Bullcoming, 22 F.4th 883 (10th Cir. 2022) (excising tainted info to test probable cause)
- United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 2005) (probable cause standards for affidavits)
- United States v. Cotto, 995 F.3d 786 (10th Cir. 2021) (good‑faith reliance on warrants)
- United States v. Knox, 883 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2018) (four‑corners rule for affidavits)
- Hackney, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 895 F.2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1990) (four‑corners doctrine)
- United States v. Gaye, 130 F.4th 865 (10th Cir. 2025) (when affidavit is facially deficient, good‑faith presumption fails)
- United States v. Mora, 989 F.3d 794 (10th Cir. 2021) (excising tainted information in subsequent affidavits)
- United States v. Loera, 923 F.3d 907 (10th Cir. 2019) (good‑faith exception inapplicable when warrant is based on prior unlawful search)