976 F.3d 815
8th Cir.2020Background
- An informant ("ABC") provided police with video and audio showing Thompson with firearms and suspected drugs, plus details about his residences, vehicles (green Nissan, later silver Nissan Maxima), and cell numbers.
- Officer Longen corroborated parts of ABC’s tip (Thompson’s age, appearance, prior arrests, vehicle registration, observed surveillance) and used the information to obtain state warrants to GPS-track both vehicles and court "orders" to obtain location/messaging data for two cell numbers.
- GPS and surveillance showed multiple trips to Chicago; police surveilled Thompson’s return from Chicago on May 6, 2018, stopped his silver Nissan near the bus station, and conducted a dog sniff and search that uncovered heroin in the car and a firearm in a bag.
- A subsequent search warrant of Thompson’s apartment (677 Wells) recovered additional firearms, ammunition, drug paraphernalia, and items linking Thompson to the residence.
- Thompson moved to suppress evidence seized under the vehicle warrants, cell-phone orders, the May 6 stop/search/arrest, the apartment search, and certain statements; the district court denied suppression in large part, and Thompson appealed; the panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for GPS vehicle warrants | Warrant affidavits relied solely on untested informant (ABC); insufficient basis | ABC’s tip was corroborated by surveillance, records, and follow-up; officer reasonably relied on tip | Court upheld warrants as supported by probable cause; even if thin, good-faith exception applies |
| Probable cause for cell-phone location orders | Orders were not warrants and relied on statutory standards below probable cause (Carpenter requires probable cause) | Officer reasonably relied on existing statutes and forms; Carpenter not yet decided; good-faith exception applies | Court assumed probable-cause requirement but held Leon/Krull good-faith exception applies; orders admissible |
| Lawfulness of May 6 traffic stop, search, arrest | Stop/search flowed only from informant-based warrants/orders and thus was unlawful | Investigation corroborated ABC: GPS, surveillance, audio/video recordings, travel to Chicago—sufficient probable cause for stop/search and arrest | Court found probable cause supported stop, search, and subsequent arrest; evidence admissible |
| Admissibility of statements (Miranda/public-safety) | Statements made while in custody without Miranda should be suppressed | Some statements were noncustodial or fell under public-safety or were voluntary and therefore admissible | Court: pre-exit traffic-stop statements noncustodial (admissible); gun-related answers admissible under Quarles public-safety exception; other volunteered statements admissible; some Miranda violations previously suppressed by district court were not appealed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (warrant requirement for historical cell-site/location data)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- Krull v. United States, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (reasonable reliance on statute can support good-faith reliance)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cellphone searches implicate heightened Fourth Amendment interests)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (ordinary traffic stops are generally noncustodial for Miranda)
- New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) (public-safety exception to Miranda)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda custodial-interrogation warning requirement)
- United States v. Clay, 646 F.3d 1124 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Gibson, 928 F.2d 250 (8th Cir. 1991) (objective-reasonableness test for officer’s belief re: probable cause and Leon)