United States v. Pacheco, 884 F.3d 1031

Background

In Feb 2014 officers, responding to a parole-warrant arrest, found Pacheco hiding in an attic and seized a cell phone he dropped when apprehended; officers later obtained a state warrant to search the residence and seized drugs and a firearm under a bedroom mattress.
The residence search produced methamphetamine (tested ~94–95% pure) and a gun; DNA on the gun excluded three other occupants but not Pacheco.
Nine days after seizure, a Kansas judge issued a warrant to search the phone’s digital contents; the affidavit noted forensic analysis would occur at a Missouri lab (HARCFL). Officers transported the phone to Missouri and extracted texts/photos linking Pacheco to drugs and the weapon.
Pacheco was tried on possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm; the jury convicted on all counts and the district court sentenced him within the Guidelines to 355 months.
On appeal Pacheco challenged: (1) the initial seizure of the phone (Fourth Amendment), (2) the out-of-state execution of the phone warrant, (3) denial of a lesser-included instruction for simple possession, and (4) drug-quantity/type attribution at sentencing.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: (1) phone seizure lawful under parolee totality-of-the-circumstances exception, (2) phone search admissible under Leon good-faith exception, (3) no abuse denying lesser-included instruction, and (4) sentencing drug-quantity/type attribution was not clearly erroneous.

Issues

Issue	Pacheco’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
1. Legality of seizing the phone at arrest	Seizure exceeded warrant and Chimel; no valid exception justified taking the phone	Phone lawfully seized under parolee exceptions (special-needs or totality-of-circumstances) or incident-to-arrest	Seizure not justified by search-incident-to-arrest or special-needs, but was reasonable under the parolee totality-of-the-circumstances exception — affirmed
2. Validity of digital search executed in Missouri pursuant to a Kansas warrant	Kansas judge lacked authority to authorize execution in Missouri; evidence should be suppressed	Even if state-law jurisdictional limits exist, Fourth Amendment focuses on reasonableness; officers relied on a judge-issued warrant and affidavit disclosing out-of-state analysis	Search upheld under Leon good-faith exception (and alternative rationales discussed) — affirmed
3. Denial of lesser-included offense instruction (simple possession)	Jury could rationally find simple possession given defendant’s user status and some testimony	Evidence (amount, packaging, expert testimony, defendant’s disclaimers) supported distribution, not mere personal use	Denial not an abuse of discretion; no sufficient evidentiary basis for the lesser-included instruction — affirmed
4. Drug quantity and classification at sentencing	District court erred attributing additional grams and labeling all as “ice” based on co-defendant Leal’s testimony	District court relied on credible trial testimony and reasonable approximation under the Guidelines	Attribution of 122.5 g (plus the recovered amount) and classification as “ice” not clearly erroneous — affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search-incident-to-arrest limits)
Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (remoteness defeats incident-to-arrest rationale)
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (special-needs parolee search framework)
Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112 (totality-of-the-circumstances parolee search reasonableness)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (requirement of warrant for cell-phone data absent a different exception)
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (parolees’ diminished expectation of privacy)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Krueger, 809 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2015) (territorial-jurisdiction issues for warrants)
United States v. Russian, 848 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2017) (consideration of affidavit in good-faith analysis)