United States v. Sadlowski, 948 F.3d 1200

Background

On Feb. 21, 2016 a New Mexico metropolitan court issued a search warrant for 808 Rio Arriba Ave SE and a vehicle based on an affidavit by Detective Gerald Koppman.
The affidavit relied on a confidential informant who reported several meth purchases from Sadlowski, observed firearms on his person and at his residence/garage/vehicle, and noted Sadlowski’s use of a black Bentley or red motorcycle.
Detective Koppman also noted Sadlowski’s prior felony convictions (including a drug-trafficking conviction) and that he was prohibited from possessing firearms.
Law enforcement (county detectives, a Valencia County detective, and ATF agents) executed the warrant and recovered several firearms and ammunition.
Sadlowski entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession, reserving the right to appeal denial of his suppression motion; district court denied suppression and sentenced him to 51 months.
On appeal Sadlowski raised four challenges to the warrant and affidavit; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether the metropolitan court had authority to issue a felony-related search warrant	Government: State court rule 7-208(A) permits metropolitan courts to issue warrants for any criminal offense; rule has force under state enabling statute	Sadlowski: Metropolitan courts lack jurisdiction over felonies and thus could not issue a felony-related search warrant	Held: Rejected Sadlowski. Authority to issue warrants is distinct from jurisdiction to try felonies; state rule grants metropolitan courts power to issue warrants for "criminal offense."
2) Whether the warrant had to comply with Federal Rules 4.1 and 41	Government: The search was a state search with minimal federal involvement, so federal rules do not apply	Sadlowski: The warrant/search was federal in character and should have followed Rules 4.1 and 41	Held: Rejected Sadlowski. The search retained state character (state officer requested warrant, state judge issued it, no clear federal prosecution plan); even if federal rules were violated, suppression requires additional showing which Sadlowski did not provide.
3) Whether the warrant/affidavit lacked probable cause or particularity (scope, description, items)	Government: Affidavit provided detailed information from a known CI, corroborated by surveillance and a second source; warrant incorporated affidavit and described the residence and anticipated items	Sadlowski: Affidavit was inadequate, lacked particularity (residence description, items to seize, CI reliability), and search exceeded scope	Held: Rejected Sadlowski. Magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; affidavit corroboration, incorporation by reference, and the warrant’s description satisfied particularity and scope requirements.
4) Whether Sadlowski was entitled to a Franks hearing (alleged false or reckless statements)	Government: No showing of intentional or reckless falsity; no evidence presented to support Franks threshold	Sadlowski: Alleged Koppman falsified or recklessly prepared the affidavit, warranting a Franks hearing	Held: Rejected Sadlowski. He failed to make the required substantial showing of intentional or reckless falsehoods; district court did not err denying a Franks hearing.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Katoa, 379 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for motions to suppress)
United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2009) (magistrate probable-cause determination reviewed for substantial basis)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant-based probable cause)
United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (factors for determining whether a search is federal in character)
United States v. Millar, 543 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1976) (state searches need only meet federal constitutional requirements)
United States v. Krueger, 809 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2015) (standards for suppression when federal rule violations occur)
Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrant particularity and incorporation of affidavits)
United States v. Williamson, 1 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 1993) (warrant may incorporate affidavit by reference)
Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960) (informant reliability may be established by corroboration)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (entitlement to hearing requires substantial showing of intentional/reckless false statements)