United States of America v. Christopher Allan Hay
No. 21-3031
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Submitted: February 18, 2022 Filed: August 23, 2022
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
KELLY, Circuit
Christopher Hay pleaded guilty to one count of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under
I.
On December 9, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Stephen B. Jackson, Jr. issued a federal search warrant authorizing the search of Hay‘s Solon, Iowa, residence for evidence related to the suspected illegal importation of firearms. The warrant application was supported by a 12-page affidavit by United States Postal Inspector Bryce Husak.
In his affidavit, Husak notes that under the National Firearms Act (NFA), the term “firearm” includes “any firearm muffler or firearm silencer.”
On October 30, 2019, the FTCB released Technical Bulletin 20-01 (the Bulletin) “to clarify the classification of solvent traps and inline filters purportedly used as solvent traps,” and the Bulletin‘s findings are included in the affidavit. According to Husak, the Bulletin explains that “legitimate solvent traps . . . attach to the muzzle of a firearm and are designed to catch or ‘trap’ dirty cleaning solvent discharged from the barrel of a firearm when cleaning.” In order to function, such solvent traps must have solid front end-caps with “no hole that [would] allow a projectile to pass-through.” Purported solvent traps “that have a hole in or indexing mark for a hole in the front end-cap,” on the other hand, “are classified as a ‘firearm silencer’ under the [NFA].”
Additionally, “[t]he size of threading on legitimate fuel filters is inconsistent with the size of firearm muzzle threading.” However, many items sold online as “fuel filters” or “inline fuel filters” contain end caps with “threads the same size as firearm barrels, [which] negates the need for adaptors or modification” before they can be used as silencers. The affidavit explains that “[t]he FTCB classified such filters as ‘firearm silencers.‘”
Finally, the affidavit discusses a particular type of “fuel filter,” often marketed as the “NAPA 4003” fuel filter, that also has “no actual filtering capability.” “NAPA 4003” fuel filters are sized to fit a firearm muzzle without an adaptor and have an end cap with “pre-drilled center markings (indexing markings) that are not drilled completely through,” and a front cap with “a fully pre-drilled hole that is threaded to accept firearm muzzles.” They also contain a “spacer . . . to create a ‘blast chamber’ at the end of the device, a known feature of commercial silencers.” These filters are classified by the FTCB as firearm silencers.
Turning to the investigation at hand, the affidavit describes the interception of two international packages addressed to Hay
The warrant application was approved on December 9, 2019, and the search of Hay‘s residence was conducted on December 17, 2019. Officers located 37 firearms; hundreds of rounds of ammunition; four inline “fuel filter” silencers, one of which was affixed to a firearm; approximately 24 grams of marijuana; and a drug ledger. Hay admitted to possessing four fully drilled and functional “fuel filter” silencers he had previously ordered online. He admitted that the silencers he possessed diminished the report of the firearm to the point that he did not need ear protection. He further admitted he had not filed any ATF forms required to possess silencers and knew it was illegal to possess them without ATF approval.
A superseding indictment filed March 9, 2021, in the Southern District of Iowa charged Hay with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance under
Hay filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his residence, arguing there was not probable cause or a sufficient nexus between a criminal offense and his residence sufficient to support the warrant. He further argued that the Bulletin on which the affidavit relied amounted to an illegal and secret change of law that altered the legal status of fuel filters and solvent traps. The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the warrant was supported by probable cause, and even if it was not, the motion should still be denied because the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. As to Hay‘s argument about the Bulletin, the court found that the Bulletin did not change the law governing fuel filters and solvent traps in any way.
Hay pleaded guilty to illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and two counts of possession of unregistered firearms, preserving his right to appeal the district court‘s denial of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced him to 30 months of imprisonment. Hay now appeals the denial of the motion to suppress.
“A mixed standard of review applies to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence.” United States v. Williams, 777 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir. 2015). “We review the district court‘s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, and the ultimate conclusion of whether the Fourth Amendment was violated is subject to de novo review.” Id. (quoting United States v. Stephenson, 924 F.2d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 1991)). Whether the Leon good faith exception applies to a search executed pursuant to a warrant is an issue we review de novo. United States v. Cannon, 703 F.3d 407, 411-12 (8th Cir. 2013).
Hay first argues that the warrant application did not establish probable cause to justify the search of his residence because it relied on the confidential Bulletin, which in Hay‘s view represents an attempt by the ATF to improperly change the law by defining all fuel filters and solvent traps as silencers regardless of how a person intends to use them. According to Hay, by citing to the Bulletin, the affiant inaccurately represented to the magistrate judge that simple possession of fuel filters and solvent traps is a violation of federal law. And without any evidence that Hay intended to use the filters as silencers, he argues, the affidavit lacked probable cause.
Hay claims that by issuing the Bulletin, the ATF sought to eliminate the intent requirement in
The only “fuel filters” that the Bulletin and affidavit claim qualify as “firearm silencers” without additional evidence of intent are those with specific characteristics that render them incapable of functioning as legitimate solvent traps but capable of being used as silencers—like those marketed as “NAPA 4003” fuel filters. These explanations help law enforcement identify devices that have no discernable use as anything but a firearm silencer. Possession of this type of “fuel filter“—in contrast to filters and solvent traps that also have lawful uses—speaks directly to
In the alternative, Hay argues that the warrant application failed to establish
Under Leon, evidence obtained from a search performed under a warrant is suppressed only if “(1) the affiant [misled] the issuing judge with a knowing or reckless false statement; (2) the issuing judge wholly abandoned her judicial role; (3) the supporting affidavit was ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable‘; or (4) the warrant was ‘so facially deficient’ that the executing officer could not reasonably presume its validity.” United States v. Notman, 831 F.3d 1084, 1089 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923).
Hay asserts that the good faith exception does not apply because “the search warrant application misstated the law regarding firearm silencers and unmodified fuel filters and omitted the intent element, misleading the judge considering the warrant as to both law and facts.” As discussed, however, the affidavit did not misstate the law or omit
III.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the denial of Hay‘s motion to suppress.