United States v. Byron Moore
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18858
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- The district court granted Moore’s suppression motion; Government appeals the ruling.
- In April 2014, police obtained a search warrant for Moore’s residence based on Hess’s affidavit listing Moore as a controlled-substance suspect and noting security cameras and Moore’s criminal history.
- The affidavit described three trash inspections (Mar 26, Apr 7, Apr 23) yielding K-2 and mail addressed to Moore’s residence; items were found in sealed trash bags.
- Police found $5,000 cash, K-2, and firearms in Moore’s residence and Moore’s son’s room during the search; Moore was on parole and had prior convictions.
- The district court found the affidavit “bare bones” and lacking probable cause; the Government appealed, raising the good-faith and probable-cause theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good faith saves the warrant | Government contends the affidavit, while imperfect, supports objective reliance. | Moore argues the affidavit is bare bones and lacks probable cause. | Good faith applies; suppression reversed. |
| Whether the trash-inspection nexus establishes probable cause | Government argues repeated inspections tying K-2 to Moore’s residence create nexus. | Moore contends lack of exclusive link undermines probable cause. | Probable cause established via nexus and corroborating facts. |
| Whether exclusive-link requirement is necessary | Government relies on multiple connections (mail, K-2, cameras, history). | Moore asserts need for exclusive ownership/link to residence. | Exclusive link not required; connections suffice. |
| Whether temporal proximity supports probable cause | Government emphasizes 72-hour gap between last trash inspection and warrant. | Moore argues timeliness weakens inference. | Temporal proximity supports probable cause. |
| Whether the meaning of 'sealed' bags undermines the warrant | Government argues 'sealed' implies closed bags; supports credibility of the search. | Moore contends ambiguity undercuts connection. | Affidavit’s meaning is reasonable; does not undermine probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 1999) (two-step suppression analysis; good faith and probable cause)
- United States v. Sibley, 448 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2006) (good-faith exception applied despite nontraditional nexus)
- United States v. Aguirre, 664 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2011) (probable cause from corroborating facts; fair probability standard)
- United States v. Freeman, 685 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1982) (probable cause established by normal inferences)
- United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1988) (temporal proximity as probative of probable cause)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (commonsense interpretation of affidavit; probable cause requires fair probability)
- United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317 (5th Cir. 1992) (corroboration from criminal history and surveillance connections)