995 F.3d 786
10th Cir.2021Background
- Road‑rage shooting in Albuquerque: surveillance video showed a black SUV hit a yellow Camaro, shots fired, and Cotto fleeing in a red Camaro; the victim later identified Cotto.
- Officers traced the red Camaro to an Apodaca Street residence; the car was parked there with its plate removed and Cotto was observed entering/exiting the house and was arrested nearby.
- A detective drafted an affidavit describing the video and that Cotto’s car was at the Apodaca residence and that Cotto was apprehended there; the affidavit requested authorization to seize “any and all firearm evidence” and “any cellphones.”
- A state judge issued a telephonic warrant; executing officers found a backpack with two taped bundles (later testing positive for methamphetamine), a Glock pistol, a rifle, and the red Camaro’s plate; an amended warrant was later obtained for the bundles.
- Cotto moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause and that the firearm and cellphone seizure clauses were overbroad; the district court denied suppression and Cotto pleaded guilty while reserving the suppression appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cotto) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search the Apodaca residence | Affidavit did not establish nexus between crime and house; parking + arrest outside insufficient | Affidavit, video, car at residence, and arrest gave at least a minimally sufficient nexus; officer followed approval process | Court avoided deciding probable‑cause; ruled good‑faith exception applies—officers reasonably relied on judge‑issued warrant |
| Particularity / Overbreadth of warrant (firearms & cellphones) | Warrant authorized seizure of “any and all” firearms and cellphones without probable cause for all such items | Firearm clause tied to observed shooting and knowledge of Cotto’s prior felony; cellphone clause was objected to but no phones were seized | Firearm provision valid and authorized seized items; cellphone provision assumed invalid but severable; no suppression because no phones were seized and firearms provision supported the search |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishing the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Campbell, 603 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2010) (good‑faith minimalnexus standard for home searches)
- United States v. Sells, 463 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) (severance doctrine for overbroad warrants)
- United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2009) (nexus requirement between alleged criminal activity and place to be searched)
- United States v. Knox, 883 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2018) (requiring affidavit text be sufficiently detailed for good‑faith reliance)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 399 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2005) (rejecting good‑faith where affidavit lacked any link between address and defendant)
- Cassady v. Goering, 567 F.3d 628 (10th Cir. 2009) (warrant language alone can violate the Fourth Amendment)