United States v. McIntyre
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15483
8th Cir.2011Background
- McIntyre conditionally pleaded guilty to manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, reserving appeal of the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Investigator Sears and Trooper Lueders investigated a missing-person case and encountered McIntyre, noting a marijuana odor and suspicious behavior.
- A trailer linked to the missing-person case was inspected; communications with a person of interest and a later search at Narke's residence yielded no findings.
- A January 9, 2009 surveillance of McIntyre's Crofton residence revealed odor of marijuana near the garage and notable electrical usage history.
- Sears obtained electricity usage records via a county attorney subpoena; an initial sheet showed a spike later found inaccurate.
- Thermal imaging warrants were sought and obtained (Jan. 14 and Jan. 15, 2009) and a Crofton residence search warrant was executed, revealing a marijuana-growing operation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of county attorney subpoena for electricity data | McIntyre contends a privacy interest invalidated subpoena. | McIntyre asserts Fourth Amendment privacy in utility data and state privacy statutes protect use. | No Fourth Amendment violation; records obtained lawfully via subpoena |
| Thermal imaging warrants and Franks hearing | False information in affidavits warrants Franks hearing. | Discrepancies do not justify Franks; probable cause remains with or without alleged falsehoods. | No Franks hearing required; affidavits supported probable cause |
| Crofton residence search warrant | Warrant tainted by prior subpoena and thermal warrants. | Even if tied, totality of circumstances supported probable cause. | Probable cause supported; warrant affirmed; not fruit of tainted searches |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (reasonable expectation of privacy generally not present for information revealed to third parties)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no privacy in information conveyed to third parties)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (voluntary disclosure to a third party destroys reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (intrusive sense-enhancing technology implicates privacy)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (Franks hearing requires false statements or omissions essential to probable cause)
- United States v. Grant, 490 F.3d 627 (2007) (probable cause reviewed under totality-of-the-circumstances)
- United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause based on totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Terry, 305 F.3d 818 (2002) (standard for evaluating search-warrant affidavits under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. McArthur, 573 F.3d 608 (2009) (summary judgment-like review of probable cause in warrant context)