United States v. Maley
1f4th816
| 10th Cir. | 2021Background
- Matthew Maley was indicted on drug offenses and a felon-in-possession charge after an FBI undercover observed a drug transaction from his travel trailer on August 1, 2013; an arrest warrant issued based on that observation.
- Maley had lived in the travel trailer, used an Arizona address linked to his vehicles, and officers found the trailer hooked up at that address in Tucson on November 17, 2013; Maley was not seen at the scene.
- When officers arrived at ~9:00 a.m., Maley’s adult sons shouted a warning toward the trailers; officers cleared a nearby double-wide, tried the locked travel-trailer door with no response, then breached and entered to execute the arrest warrant.
- Inside the trailer officers observed a shotgun in plain view; subsequent search revealed 30 more firearms and other evidence; the district court later held the subsequent search unlawful but that the initial entry was lawful and the shotgun alone supported the felon-in-possession conviction.
- Maley’s New Mexico trial counsel did not move to suppress the trailer evidence; Maley filed a § 2255 IAC claim arguing a suppression motion would likely have succeeded and prevented his firearms conviction.
- The district court denied relief, holding Maley was not prejudiced because officers had probable cause to believe he was inside the trailer when they entered; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Maley's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had probable cause to believe Maley would be found in the travel trailer (warrant to arrest but no search warrant) | The facts did not add up to probable cause that Maley was inside when officers entered; therefore entry and any evidence should be suppressed | Totality of circumstances (residence linked to Maley, trailer hooked up, his truck present, time of day, sons' warnings, prior undercover sightings) created a fair probability he was inside | Court held officers had probable cause to enter under Payton; entry lawful and plain-view shotgun admissible |
| Whether failure to move to suppress constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (prejudice prong) | If counsel had moved to suppress the trailer evidence, the firearms evidence would have been excluded and the felon-in-possession conviction would likely not have occurred | Even excluding the unlawful later search, the shotgun seen in plain view during a lawful entry would still support conviction; no reasonable probability of a different outcome | Court held Maley failed to prove prejudice required by Strickland; IAC claim denied |
| Whether the court must apply Ninth Circuit (probable-cause) or Tenth Circuit (lower) standard to ‘‘reason to believe’’ under Payton | Maley urged application of the local (Ninth) probable-cause standard for entries occurring in that circuit | Government did not press for Tenth Circuit’s lower standard; court need not resolve split because probable cause existed under the higher standard anyway | Court avoided choice-of-law question and found probable cause under the Ninth Circuit standard, making the entry lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry to effect an arrest in a residence requires reason to believe the suspect is inside)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (prejudice in Fourth Amendment-based IAC claims requires a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim and reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable cause requires only a fair probability and is assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause is evaluated by totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Denson, 775 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2014) (presence at a residence and other contextual factors can support belief the suspect is at home)
- United States v. Ludwig, 641 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2011) (probable cause requires a fair probability the suspect is present)
- Harman v. Pollock, 586 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2009) (plain-view observation of contraband during a lawful entry supports seizure)
- Valdez v. McPheters, 172 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1999) (factors such as registered address, vehicle presence, and time of day can support a reasonable belief a suspect is present)