United States v. Nigel Marc Gordon
686 F. App'x 702
11th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Nigel Marc Gordon pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant.
- The search warrant was issued after a video-recorded proceeding before Fulton County Magistrate Judge Roy Roberts based on Detective Derek Williams’s affidavit; the video began mid-interaction and did not show the oath administration.
- Gordon argued the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment oath-or-affirmation requirement and Georgia’s video-warrant statute (O.C.G.A. § 17-5-21.1) because the judge did not administer the oath on camera and the recording was not preserved.
- He further argued that the Leon good-faith exception should not apply because the judge abandoned his judicial role and the warrant was facially invalid under Groh v. Ramirez.
- The district court credited Detective Williams’s testimony that Judge Roberts swore him before recording and denied suppression; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the factual findings for clear error and the Leon exception de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant lacked the required oath/affirmation | Gordon: Judge Roberts and Williams failed to comply with oath-on-camera requirement, so warrant unsupported | Government: Williams testified the oath was administered before recording; judge reviewed affidavit and asked questions | Court: No clear error in district court crediting Williams; found oath was administered |
| Whether Georgia’s video-warrant statute violation controls admissibility | Gordon: Failure to record oath as Georgia law requires renders warrant invalid | Government: Admissibility in federal criminal cases governed by federal law, not state recording requirements | Court: State-law recording failure irrelevant to federal admissibility; federal law controls |
| Whether Leon good-faith exception applies | Gordon: Leon inapplicable because judge abandoned judicial role and warrant facially invalid | Government: Williams reasonably and objectively relied on the warrant; judge reviewed affidavit and acted neutrally | Court: Even if oath lacking, Leon applies; judge did not abandon role and officer acted in good faith |
| Whether warrant was so facially deficient to make reliance unreasonable | Gordon: Lack of oath rendered warrant facially invalid (citing Groh/Ramirez) | Government: Lack of video recording is not the type of defect that makes reliance unreasonable; prior officer experience supports reasonableness | Court: Warrant not facially deficient for Leon purposes; reliance was objectively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrant facially invalid if it fails to meet particularity requirement)
- Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (1979) (judge must maintain neutrality and not participate in search)
- United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2002) (assessing whether a warrant is facially deficient and officer reliance is reasonable)
- United States v. Creel, 783 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2015) (clear-error standard for factual findings on suppression)
- Brown v. (unnamed in text), 415 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2005) (credibility can support finding oath was administered despite incomplete recording)
- United States v. Richardson, 943 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1991) (distinguishing lack of oath from defects that render a warrant facially invalid)
- United States v. Hessman, 369 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2004) (applying Leon to unsworn or unsigned warrant situations)
- United States v. Kurt, 986 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1993) (Leon applied where issuing magistrate failed to administer oath)
- United States v. Moore, 986 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1992) (lack of oath does not necessarily destroy facial validity of warrant)