United States v. Putnam ( 2023 )

Case: 22-51061 Document: 00516964657 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-51061
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Kristopher Dean Putnam,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:21-CR-115-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendant-Appellant Kristopher Dean Putnam was charged with one
count of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2252(a)(2), and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). Evidence leading to his indictment was
seized during the execution of a search warrant that authorized officers to
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51061 Document: 00516964657 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2023
No. 22-51061
search his cellphone for evidence related to the offense of capital murder.
Putnam moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the execution of
the search warrant. The district court denied his suppression motion, and he
pleaded guilty plea to both counts, reserving his right to appeal the
suppression ruling. On appeal, Putnam contends that the search warrant (1)
lacked indicia of probable cause that a crime was committed, (2) failed to
connect his cellphone to criminal activity, and (3) was overbroad and lacked
the requisite particularity because it authorized officers to search the entire
contents of his cellphone. Because the good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule applies, we affirm.
On April 26, 2020, Travis County, Texas dispatchers were notified
that a trailer was on fire in the city of Austin, Texas. Following firefighters’
efforts to extinguish the fire, a woman’s body—later determined to be Dana
Crocker-Norman—was found in the wreckage of the trailer. Crocker-
Norman’s boyfriend, Billy Wayne Hope, III, was informed of the fire and
arrived on the scene. Hope reported that he had been at the trailer earlier in
the day and that, when he left, Putnam was asleep under a tree adjacent to
the trailer. During their investigation into Crocker-Norman’s death, officers
determined that Putnam had provided false information about his
whereabouts on the day of the fire and concluded that his cellphone might
contain evidence that could aid in establishing his location around the time of
the blaze. In the affidavit supporting the search warrant, affiant Detective
Nathan Matteson outlined (1) Putnam’s inconsistent statements regarding
his whereabouts, which Putnam himself later admitted were false, (2) the
statements and corroborating evidence provided by another witness who was
with Putnam that day and contradicted Putnam’s version of events, and (3) a
Fire Marshal’s evaluation of Putnam’s statements about the fire. The
affidavit laid out the scope of the requested search, including global position
system location data, text messages, photographs, and videos stored on
2
Case: 22-51061 Document: 00516964657 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2023
No. 22-51061
Putnam’s phone. It also included the procedures to be used for handling the
data stored on the phone. A state judge in Travis County subsequently issued
the search warrant.
In an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for
clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party. United States v. Jarman, 847 F.3d 259, 264 (5th Cir. 2017). A factual
finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has “a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Scroggins,
599 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2010).
If the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, we may
affirm without further inquiry. United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882, 888
(5th Cir. 2004). However, the good-faith exception does not apply if, inter
alia, (1) the affidavit is “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render
official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable” or (2) the warrant is so
facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or things
to be seized that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be
valid. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). “[T]he determination of the reasonableness of
a law enforcement officer’s reliance upon a warrant issued by a magistrate for
purposes of determining the applicability of the good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule” is a question of law that we review de novo. Jarman, 847
F.3d at 264 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted).
Contrary to Putnam’s assertions, the affidavit contained more than
wholly conclusional statements. Instead, it provided specific facts and
circumstances that allowed the issuing judge to make a probable-cause
determination regarding the search of the cellphone. See United States v.
Morton, 46 F.4th 331, 336-38 (5th Cir. 2022). The totality of the
3
Case: 22-51061 Document: 00516964657 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/13/2023
No. 22-51061
circumstances confirm that the affidavit is not bare bones. See id. at 337. For
example, it set forth facts indicating that Putnam had provided false
information about his whereabouts shortly after the fire, and it included a Fire
Marshal’s evaluation of Putnam’s statements that contradicted his version
of events. Additionally, Putnam has not shown that the search warrant was
impermissibly overbroad and has therefore failed to show that the warrant
was so facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or
the things to be seized that the executing officers could not reasonably
presume it to be valid. See United States v. Triplett, 684 F.3d 500, 505 (5th
Cir. 2012); see also Leon, 468 U.S. at 923.
Because the executing officer’s reliance on the warrant was
objectively reasonable and made in good faith, we uphold the district court’s
rejection of Putnam’s challenge to the good-faith exception. See Morton, 46
F.4th at 338; see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700 (1996).
AFFIRMED.
4