United States v. Pulliam
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6416
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Pulliam was indicted federally for being a felon in possession of firearms and as an armed career criminal after Colorado state officers executed a state search warrant at his residence and recovered firearms.
- Pulliam moved to suppress the firearms, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause, was insufficiently particular, and that police failed to provide a complete copy of the warrant (and attachments) as required.
- The warrant was supported by an affidavit relying largely on identified informant Andre Herring, who had previously led police to stolen property and provided details of selling a handgun to Pulliam and seeing Pulliam possess guns.
- Attachment B to the warrant listed “any and all firearms and ammunition,” manufacturer materials, and indicia of occupancy for Pulliam’s apartment; the executing officers left Pulliam the warrant face sheet and an inventory written on its back but did not leave the affidavit or Attachment B.
- The district court denied suppression; Pulliam pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal the suppression denial. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to issue warrant based on informant’s tip | Herring was an untested, unreliable informant; his statements did not establish probable cause | Herring was identified, had provided accurate, corroborated tips before, and gave first-hand details about selling and observing guns with Pulliam | Warrant supported by probable cause; magistrate’s finding entitled to great deference and affidavit provided a substantial basis for issuance |
| Particularity of items to be seized (Attachment B listing "any and all firearms") | Broad description was insufficiently particular to limit the search/seizure | Pulliam was a known felon; any firearms in his possession were contraband so broad description was as specific as circumstances required | Attachment B was sufficiently particular given Pulliam’s felon status and the nature of the investigation |
| Whether failure to give suspect a copy of warrant attachments violates Fourth Amendment particularity | Missing Attachment B on the copy prevented monitoring police and violated particularity protections | Fourth Amendment focuses on the warrant as issued to police; target’s copy is not a constitutional tool to police the search in real time | Court followed Grubbs: no Fourth Amendment right to a complete copy during execution; particularity assessed based on warrant issued to police |
| Rule 41 and warrant-term violation (failure to provide complete copy/inventory) — remedy of suppression | Officers violated Rule 41 and the warrant’s term to leave a copy and inventory; suppression warranted | Rule 41 doesn’t apply to state warrants executed by state officers; suppression requires showing prejudice or intentional/disregard of the rule/warrant term | No suppression: Rule 41 inapplicable to state-only search; even if violated, Pulliam did not show prejudice or intentional disregard; officers gave face sheet and inventory, satisfying warrant’s practical command |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality-of-circumstances standard for probable cause)
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (no Fourth Amendment right to a complete copy of warrant during execution; particularity protects pre-issuance judicial review)
- United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272 (deference to magistrate’s probable-cause determination)
- United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 (particularity standard: description valid if as specific as circumstances permit)
- United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945 (suppression for Rule 41/warrant-term violations requires prejudice or intentional disregard)
- United States v. Bookout, 810 F.2d 965 (Rule 41 does not apply to purely state warrants)