United States v. John Underwood
725 F.3d 1076
9th Cir.2013Background
- DEA and local police wiretapped and investigated a large ecstasy distribution organization led by Jimmy Luong; federal agents executed multiple federal arrest and search warrants based on a 102‑page federal affidavit prepared by DEA Agent Peter Johnson.
- On July 22, 2010 officers executed a federal arrest warrant for Underwood at his Mansa Drive home; during a protective sweep officers observed a personal‑use amount of marijuana in plain view.
- DEA Agent Johnson emailed LAPD Detective James Kaiser a summary and portions of the federal affidavit; Kaiser prepared a state affidavit for a Mansa Drive search warrant that copied about 4.5 pages nearly verbatim from Johnson’s federal affidavit without attaching the federal affidavit or clearly attributing the text.
- Kaiser’s state affidavit otherwise contained two discrete factual items: the April observation of Underwood delivering two crates to Luong/Barrera (no description of crates’ contents) and the small bag of marijuana; the affidavit also relied on generalized, foundationless expert assertions about drug traffickers’ habits drawn from Johnson’s affidavit.
- A California superior court issued the state search warrant; the ensuing search seized large quantities of cocaine, cash, ecstasy pills, packaging, and records. Underwood moved to suppress; the district court granted suppression, holding the state affidavit lacked probable cause and was a “bare bones” affidavit precluding Leon good‑faith reliance. The government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Underwood) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state affidavit supported probable cause to search Mansa Drive for ecstasy trafficking evidence | Affidavit lacked underlying facts — only a single delivery months earlier and a personal‑use amount of marijuana; expert opinions were foundationless — therefore no fair probability of finding trafficking evidence | Warrant supported by the same underlying federal investigation and factual summaries sent from DEA; affiant reasonably relied on that information | The court held the affidavit failed to establish probable cause; it was largely conclusory and required impermissible inferences |
| Whether Leon’s good‑faith exception saves the seized evidence | The affidavit was a bare‑bones affidavit so officers could not reasonably rely on the warrant; extrinsic factors do not cure a bare‑bones defect | Even if not bare bones, officers reasonably relied on the warrant and the prior federal warrant/federal affidavit (extrinsic evidence) | The court held the affidavit was bare bones; good‑faith exception did not apply. Even considering extrinsic factors, reliance was objectively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality‑of‑the‑circumstances probable cause standard)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (announces good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule and identifies four situations where it fails)
- United States v. Weber, 923 F.2d 1338 (Ninth Circuit: expert/opinion evidence requires foundation showing target is member of described class)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (Supreme Court: extrinsic supervisory or prosecutor review may bear on good‑faith analysis)
- Ventresca v. New York, 380 U.S. 102 (magistrate must be given underlying facts to perform detached probable‑cause review)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment)