United States v. Russian
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2913
10th Cir.2017Background
- Police arrested James Russian after a violent 911 incident and high-speed pursuit; officers seized two Samsung cell phones (one on his person, one in his car) and later searched them.
- Deputy Wilson prepared and submitted a warrant application identifying the two phones and requesting specific phone data; the issued warrant, however, authorized only a search of Russian’s residence and seizure of cell phones found therein and did not expressly authorize searching phones already in police custody or seizing phone data.
- Wilson searched the seized phones, recovering text messages, call logs, and photos used at trial to connect Russian to the victims, guns, and drug distribution.
- Russian was indicted on four counts: two § 922(g)(1) counts (gun/ammunition possession), one § 924(c) (firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking), and one § 841(a) (possession with intent to distribute marijuana). He moved to suppress the phone evidence on particularity grounds; the district court denied suppression based on the Leon good-faith exception.
- A jury convicted on all counts; district court sentenced Russian to a total of 137 months. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed convictions (holding the good-faith exception applied and any Fourth Amendment error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt) but remanded for resentencing because the PSR misstated the Guidelines range and the district court imposed a sentence on Count 4 above the statutory maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Russian's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant was sufficiently particular to authorize searching the two seized cell phones and their data | Warrant lacked particularity as it did not identify the phones in custody or the types of phone data to be seized | Warrant application/affidavit identified phones and data; magistrate signed the application and warrant referenced it; officers reasonably relied on the warrant | Warrant was invalid for lack of particularity, but officers’ reliance was objectively reasonable and good-faith exception applies |
| Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies despite facial invalidity of the warrant | Warrant was so facially deficient that no reasonable officer could rely on it | Deputy Wilson prepared the affidavit, the magistrate signed the affidavit and warrant referenced it, and the search was limited to items in the affidavit | Good-faith exception applies; suppression not warranted |
| If suppression were erroneous, whether admission of phone evidence was harmless error | Phone evidence was prejudicial and woven through trial, so error was not harmless | Overwhelming independent physical evidence (guns, ammunition, large quantity of marked baggies, scales, cash, ledger, witness testimony) proves each offense beyond reasonable doubt | Any Fourth Amendment error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed |
| Whether sentencing errors require relief | PSR scored an expired 15-year-old conviction, producing an incorrect Guidelines range; count 4 sentence exceeded statutory maximum | Government concedes PSR and sentencing errors | Remand for resentencing on Counts 1, 2, and 4; correct Count 4 sentence to statutory maximum |
Key Cases Cited
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to states)
- Leon v. United States, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (cell-phone digital data generally requires a warrant)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant must itself satisfy particularity requirement)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (constitutional errors subject to harmless-error analysis)
- United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 (Tenth Circuit guidance on particularity and good-faith analysis)
- United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127 (facially deficient warrants and objective-reasonableness test)
- United States v. Christie, 717 F.3d 1156 (computer/cell-phone search particularity analogies)
- United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness review standard)