United States v. Thurman
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23933
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Thurman, a convicted felon, was charged with unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition following a search of a two-story frame house on property at 1035 Zeller Ave., Marshall County, Iowa.
- The property included a mobile home and several outbuildings; a separate structure at 1025 Zeller Ave. was near the frame house.
- Police relied on Thurman's statements that he possessed pistols in 'his house' and on his felon status to justify a search warrant.
- The Marshall County Assessor’s website indicated the two-story frame house at 1035 Zeller Ave. and did not list 1025 Zeller Ave. as a house.
- An Iowa magistrate issued a warrant describing the two-story frame dwelling and outbuildings, located about one and two-thirds miles north of Highway 96, possessed by Thurman, for firearms evidence.
- The officers searched the frame house, found firearms and ammunition, and Thurman was convicted and sentenced to 76 months after trial; suppression of seized evidence was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there probable cause to search the frame house? | Thurman argues the house was at 1025 Zeller Ave., not Thurman's residence, so probable cause for the frame house is lacking. | The warrant, read as a whole with the statements that the house was possessed by Thurman and that he had pistols there, supports probable cause. | Probable cause supported by the warrant read in context; good-faith reliance affirmed. |
| Was the warrant sufficiently particular given conflicting addresses? | The address on the warrant (1035) did not match the frame house at 1025, risking a misidentification. | Description of a two-story frame dwelling at a specific Zeller Ave. location sufficed for particularity; minor address discrepancy not fatal. | Warrant description was sufficiently particular to identify the premises. |
| Did good-faith reliance on the warrant bar suppression under Leon? | Not explicitly, but the warrant’s deficiencies undermine reliance. | Officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith, considering all circumstances including what was omitted from the warrant. | Officers reasonably relied in good faith on the warrant; suppression not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Colbert, 605 F.3d 573 (8th Cir. 2010) (probable-cause assessment may consider inferred sources where warranted information supports a finding)
- United States v. Summage, 481 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir. 2007) (allowing consideration of basis of information in warrant analysis)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Supreme Court 1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1258 (8th Cir. 1996) (totality of circumstances including omitted information in evaluating good faith)
- United States v. Simpkins, 914 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir. 1990) (considering totality of circumstances for good-faith analysis)
- United States v. Martin, 833 F.2d 752 (8th Cir. 1987) (relevant factors for assessing good-faith reliance on warrants)
- United States v. Ridinger, 805 F.2d 818 (8th Cir. 1986) (inaccurate address not fatal when other identifying details exist)
- United States v. Peters, 92 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 1996) (particularity standard based on practical accuracy)
- United States v. Lowe, 50 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 1995) (practical accuracy suffices for warrant particularity)