United States v. Ted Phillips, 834 F.3d 1176

In February 2014 a Florida court issued a writ of bodily attachment (civil arrest warrant) for Ted Phillips for unpaid child support; the writ allowed immediate release upon payment of $300.00.
A Miami-Dade police flyer notified officers to detain Phillips; on March 1 Officer Rodriguez, aware of the writ and flyer, approached Phillips near the scene of a recent shooting.
As Officer Rodriguez moved to effect the arrest, Phillips reached toward his waistband; the officer seized a loaded .380 caliber handgun from Phillips’s waistband.
Phillips, a convicted felon, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) after pleading guilty; he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
The district court denied suppression, ruling that the civil writ was equivalent to a criminal arrest warrant and that the firearm was recoverable as a search incident to a valid arrest.
At sentencing the presentence report listed eight prior qualifying drug convictions; Phillips did not object, his counsel requested the 15‑year mandatory minimum, and the court imposed that sentence.

Issue	Phillips' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether a civil writ of bodily attachment for unpaid child support qualifies as a "warrant" under the Fourth Amendment so that an arrest (and search incident to arrest) is reasonable	The writ is civil and not equivalent to a criminal arrest warrant; thus the arrest and subsequent search were unreasonable and the firearm should be suppressed	The writ functions as a warrant (analogous to a bench warrant); arrests based on such warrants are reasonable and searches incident to those arrests are lawful	The writ is a "warrant" under the Fourth Amendment; arrest was lawful and seizure of the firearm as a search incident to arrest was valid — suppression denied
Whether Phillips may challenge his designation as an Armed Career Criminal under § 924(e) on appeal despite pleading guilty and requesting the mandatory sentence	Various challenges to prior convictions: (1) statute changed mens rea in 2002 so convictions don't qualify; (2) adjudication was withheld for some convictions so they don't count; (3) prior convictions were judge‑found not jury‑found	Phillips waived these challenges by pleading guilty, acknowledging the mandatory minimum, failing to object to the PSI, and requesting the 15‑year sentence; precedent forecloses the substantive arguments	Phillips waived appellate review of these sentencing challenges; even on the merits, Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court precedent foreclose his arguments — sentence affirmed

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (interpretation of certain arrest warrants and material‑witness statutes; Court declined to decide warrant‑status question presented there)
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (use of history and reasonableness principles to evaluate arrests under the Fourth Amendment)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (search incident to arrest doctrine and scope of searches following a lawful arrest)
Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (prior convictions may be found by a judge for sentence‑enhancement purposes)