United States v. Krueger
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19622
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- HSI agents traced child-pornography distribution to an IP address registered to Krueger (Kansas resident). A Kansas magistrate issued Warrant 1 to search Krueger’s Kansas home; Krueger was not there.
- Agents learned Krueger (and his computer/hard drive) were at a friend’s home in Oklahoma (Benner). Agent Moore then obtained Warrant 2 from a different Kansas magistrate to search Benner’s Oklahoma residence and Krueger’s car.
- Oklahoma agents executed Warrant 2, seized Krueger’s computer and hard drive, and obtained incriminating statements from Krueger (Miranda waiver). The devices were not searched until later after written consent was obtained.
- Krueger moved to suppress evidence and statements, arguing Warrant 2 violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(b)(1) because the issuing Kansas magistrate lacked territorial authority for property located in Oklahoma.
- The district court granted suppression, finding a Rule 41(b)(1) violation and that Krueger showed prejudice (the Kansas magistrate would not have issued Warrant 2 had the Rule been followed). The government appealed only the prejudice ruling.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it accepted the Rule 41 violation, applied the Pennington prejudice framework, adopted the district court’s prejudice standard (look to the actual issuing magistrate’s authority), and held suppression appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Krueger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warrant 2 violated Rule 41(b)(1) by being issued by a Kansas magistrate for property in Oklahoma | Warrant was valid or harmless because another proper magistrate could have issued the same warrant | Warrant violated Rule 41(b)(1) and thus was void or required suppression | Conceded violation; court treats Rule 41(b)(1) as violated |
| Whether the Rule 41(b)(1) violation is a Fourth Amendment (constitutional) violation | Argues territorial limits are statutory/rule-based, not required by the Fourth Amendment (neutral magistrate suffices) | Argues a warrant issued outside issuing magistrate’s jurisdiction is not a valid Fourth Amendment warrant | Court avoided deciding constitutionality because outcome did not turn on it; suppression affirmed on prejudice grounds |
| Proper standard for establishing prejudice from a Rule 41 violation | Prejudice should be assessed by whether any magistrate in the proper district could have issued the warrant (speculative cure) | Prejudice should be judged by whether the issuing magistrate could comply with Rule 41 — focus on what actually occurred | Adopted the district court’s standard: ask whether the issuing magistrate could have complied; speculative hypotheticals about other magistrates are insufficient |
| Whether suppression is the appropriate remedy given prejudice | Government contends defendant cannot show prejudice; suppression unwarranted | Defendant contends he was prejudiced because the Oklahoma search likely would not have occurred absent the Rule violation | Court held defendant proved prejudice (search might not have occurred) and suppression furthers deterrence; affirmed suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pennington, 635 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1980) (framework for when Rule 41 violations justify suppression)
- United States v. Pulliam, 748 F.3d 967 (10th Cir. 2014) (applying Pennington framework)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, and grossly negligent police conduct)
- United States v. Cusumano, 83 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 1996) (declining to reach unnecessary constitutional question)
- United States v. Baker, 894 F.2d 1144 (10th Cir. 1990) (warrant issued beyond issuing judge’s jurisdiction invalid for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- United States v. Glover, 736 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (warrant issued in blatant disregard of territorial jurisdiction cannot be excused)
- United States v. Master, 614 F.3d 236 (6th Cir. 2010) (discussing implications of warrants issued by judges lacking authority; remedy balancing)
- United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 (1932) (warrants must emanate from magistrates empowered to issue them)