735 F.3d 1187
10th Cir.2013Background
- Investigators building a murder-for-hire case against Alonzo Johnson suspected evidence might be hidden at Germain Harris’s auto shop and obtained a search warrant targeting the shop.
- Surveillance showed Johnson driving erratically to evade police, parking at Harris’s shop, using a key to enter, then leaving shortly thereafter; officers also knew Johnson had access to the van used in the murder and that keys and the murder weapon were missing.
- During execution of the warrant aimed at the murder conspiracy, officers found an illegal gun and drugs belonging to Harris; Harris was later convicted based on evidence seized.
- Harris moved to suppress the evidence and alternatively sought a new trial based on newly discovered statements by co-conspirators claiming the murder weapon had been disposed of elsewhere.
- The district court denied suppression and denied Harris’s new-trial motions; Harris appealed, challenging the warrant’s probable-cause nexus, staleness, informant reliability, and the new-evidence ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / nexus between crime and shop | Warrant failed to show nexus linking murder evidence to Harris’s shop | Affidavit showed Johnson’s connection to the van, missing keys/weapon, Johnson’s entry to shop, officers’ experience that conspirators hide evidence at friends/"clubhouses" | Warrant established a sufficient nexus; probable cause existed to search the shop |
| Staleness of information | Murder occurred 18 months earlier; affidavit information was stale | Probable cause focuses on whether evidence is likely then present, not just temporal proximity; corroborating facts suggested current presence | Information was not stale; facts supported a fair probability the evidence remained at the shop |
| Use of confidential informant / hearsay | Affidavit included informant hearsay with no reliability shown | Independent corroboration in affidavit made informant reliability unnecessary; informant added nonessential details | Informant failure to show reliability did not defeat probable cause because other corroboration existed |
| New-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence | Statements by co-conspirators that gun was disposed/buried showed search lacked probable cause and require acquittal | Newly discovered statements do not negate probable cause to seek other items (keys, phones, documents); such statements need not preclude alternative leads | District court did not abuse discretion denying a new trial; new evidence would not probably produce acquittal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2005) (nexus requirement between place to be searched and suspected criminal activity)
- United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2009) (officer experience can help establish nexus and probable cause)
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (probable cause as a "fair probability" evidence will be found at a place)
- United States v. Rowland, 145 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 1998) (probable cause to search a residence requires additional evidence linking the residence to the suspected activity)
- United States v. Snow, 919 F.2d 1458 (10th Cir. 1990) (probable cause cannot be based on stale information)
- United States v. Danhauer, 229 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2000) (independent corroboration can cure lack of informant reliability in an affidavit)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to suppression for searches pursuant to a magistrate-issued warrant)
- United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2000) (standards for granting new trial based on newly discovered evidence)