United States v. Bullcoming, 22 F.4th 883

Victim Linda Zotigh was found murdered and her trailer set on fire on Indian trust land; her body had multiple stab wounds and significant blood evidence.
Tommy Dean Bullcoming (defendant), who had a volatile relationship with Zotigh, was arrested the day after the body was found on a tribal warrant for failure to appear; he possessed a black duffel bag and asked officers to take it.
BIA Special Agent Micah Ware opened and inventoried the bag on three occasions (once immediately when searching for medication, later logging it into evidence, and again before applying for a warrant); the affidavit for a search warrant incorporated information from these inventories.
A search warrant was issued for the bag; investigators recovered sandals in the bag with blood later matched to Zotigh.
Pretrial, Bullcoming sought (1) court-ordered access to Zotigh’s trailer (in third-party possession) for inspection and (2) suppression of evidence from the bag, arguing inventory searches were illegal and tainted the warrant; the district court denied both motions.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held the district court lacked authority to order access to third-party property and that, even excising information derived from the challenged inventories, the affidavit contained sufficient untainted facts to establish probable cause for the warrant.

Issue	Bullcoming's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was entitled to court-ordered access to the victim's trailer (third-party property) for defense inspection	Denial violated due process and Sixth Amendment effective-assistance rights; inspection needed for defense evidence	Federal court lacks authority to order access to third-party property; Rule 16 and Constitution don’t require government to obtain third-party property	Affirmed: court lacked authority; no constitutional violation shown
Whether evidence from duffel bag must be suppressed because affidavit relied on information from allegedly illegal inventory searches	Inventories on Sept. 11 and 18 were unlawful, so affidavit was tainted and warrant invalid; sandals/blood must be suppressed	Even excluding inventory-derived items, the affidavit contained sufficient untainted facts (blood at scene, cuts on defendant, surveillance showing blood, circumstantial ties) to establish probable cause	Affirmed: excising contested info, affidavit still established probable cause; suppression denied

Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (no general constitutional right to discovery in criminal cases)
United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008) (de novo review on scope-of-authority discovery rulings)
United States v. Tierney, 947 F.2d 854 (8th Cir. 1991) (Rule 16 does not require government to obtain information it does not possess)
United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1985) (government not obligated to secure third-party information)
United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 2005) (warrant upheld if probable cause exists absent unconstitutionally obtained information)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause standard)
United States v. Barajas, 710 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2013) (probable cause requires fair probability evidence will be found in a particular place)
United States v. Loera, 923 F.3d 907 (10th Cir. 2019) (de novo review whether affidavit establishes probable cause absent challenged material)