985 F.3d 702
9th Cir.2021Background
- Police investigated a violent domestic-abuse incident in which a suspect pointed an unloaded revolver at a victim, opened a box of ammunition, and the victim later told police she had given the described “large silver & gold revolver” to someone called “Dubs.”
- The victim provided identifying details (appearance, phone number, address, vehicles); police identified “Dubs” as Sheldon King and observed King’s car at the listed residence.
- King had two qualifying felony convictions making him a prohibited possessor; officers sought and obtained a warrant to search King’s home for “any firearm” and related items.
- The search recovered four firearms (including the described silver & gold revolver) and a stolen, fully automatic AK-style rifle; King was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- King moved to suppress the seized firearms as the product of an overbroad warrant; the district court denied suppression, King pleaded guilty with an appellate waiver (reserving only the suppression issue), was sentenced to 90 months, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | King’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant was overbroad—probable cause supported only the specific silver & gold revolver, not a search for “any firearm.” | Probable cause extended only to the particular revolver described by the victim; broader seizure of other firearms exceeded the affidavit’s scope. | The affidavit supplied a fair probability that other firearms would be present because King concealed the revolver for another and any firearm in King’s hands would be contraband under a felon-in-possession investigation. | Warrant valid: magistrate had a substantial basis to authorize search for “any firearm.” Suppression denial affirmed. |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed even if warrant invalid under the good-faith exception. | N/A (argues suppression) | Officers reasonably relied on a magistrate-issued warrant in a felon-in-possession investigation; a reasonably trained officer would not have known the search was illegal. | Good-faith exception applies; evidence admissible if warrant were deficient. |
| Whether King may appeal his sentence and Guidelines calculation despite an appellate waiver. | Waiver was not knowing/voluntary because he lacked full knowledge of possible sentencing arguments and plea colloquy defects. | Appellate waiver was clear and knowingly entered; only suppression appeal was preserved. | Waiver enforceable; sentence claims dismissed as waived. |
| Whether the district court’s off-record sidebar and questions violated Rule 11(c)(1) such that King may withdraw his plea. | The court’s sidebar, continuance, and questioning constituted improper judicial participation and coerced the plea. | The judge’s conduct was administrative and informational, not coercive; King still chose to plead and received a favorable below-Guidelines sentence. | No plain error; interactions did not affect substantial rights—no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (magistrate’s probable-cause determination entitled to great deference; totality-of-circumstances standard)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (affidavits must be read in commonsense, not hypertechnical, fashion)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for reasonable reliance on a magistrate-issued warrant)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) (under particular circumstances, officers reasonably could execute a broad firearms search)
- Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (invalidated overbroad warrant in domestic-violence context where affidavit lacked basis to search for other firearms)
- United States v. Nora, 765 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (observation of suspect with a gun, without more, insufficient to support searching for other firearms)
- United States v. Diaz, 491 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2007) (definition of probable cause as a fair probability under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. SDI Future Health, Inc., 568 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2009) (warrant scope must be limited by the probable cause shown)
- United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2016) (enforcement of clear, knowing, and voluntary appellate waivers)