United States v. Michael Wright, 777 F.3d 635

Background

Wright’s apartment was to be searched under a warrant referencing an attached DEA affidavit detailing drugs, money, and documents like ledgers and telephone lists as items to seize.
Before execution, the affidavit was removed and sealed to protect an ongoing investigation, and the final warrant lacked the list of items to be seized.
Agent Taylor, who arranged the raid, did not notice the missing list during execution, but the search followed the remaining warrant terms.
Wright moved to suppress, and the District Court suppressed the evidence, finding the warrant facially invalid and applying Leon despite later nuances from Herring.
On appeal, the panel vacated and remanded, ultimately holding that suppression was not required because Agent Taylor’s conduct did not meet gross negligence, aligning with Franz’s framework.
The court affirmed the District Court’s denial of Wright’s motion to suppress, holding the exclusionary rule did not apply given the circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether suppression is required when a warrant lacks the list to be seized due to sealing	Wright argues the omission makes the warrant facially invalid and triggers suppression.	Government argues good-faith exception and Franz framework permit avoidance of suppression.	No suppression required; good-faith analysis applies.
Whether Agent Taylor’s conduct constitutes gross negligence warranting suppression	Taylor’s failure to ensure the list was attached shows gross negligence under Herring.	Taylor’s conduct was not grossly negligent given experience and mitigating factors from Franz.	Taylor not grossly negligent; suppression not warranted.
Whether Franz’s framework governs whether the exclusionary rule applies here	Franz supports suppression due to similar sealing/list issues and agent culpability.	Franz is informative but not controlling; totality of circumstances weighs against suppression.	Franz governs but does not compel suppression; factors favor non-suppression.
Whether the Government gained any advantage from the Fourth Amendment violation	Violation aided the search by enabling reliance on the sealed list to be omitted.	No material advantage; same evidence would have been obtained with or without the list.	No gain from the violation; deterrence not achieved.
Whether Herring’s deterrence framework supports suppression given isolated negligence	Deterrence demands suppression for negligent conduct.	Isolated mistakes do not justify suppression under Herring.	Isolated negligence insufficient for suppression; not deterred by exclusion.

Key Cases Cited

Franz, 772 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2014) (considered totality of circumstances; not automatic refusal to apply good-faith when warrant facially invalid)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule deters deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct; isolated negligence not grounds for suppression)
Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (officer reliance on magistrate’s assurance that warrant is adequate; not all verbal assurances suffice)
Tracey, 597 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2010) (warrant deficiency analyzed with consideration of officer conduct and probable cause)
Bartholomew v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 221 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2000) (precedent on warrant particularity and suppression framework)
Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (exclusionary rule costs and deterrence considerations in suppression analysis)