United States v. John Ralston ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-3352
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    John Lee Ralston
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
    ____________
    Submitted: September 22, 2023
    Filed: December 14, 2023
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
    Following a search of his residence, John Lee Ralston was charged with being
    a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)
    and 924(a)(2). The district court, concluding the Leon good-faith exception applied,
    denied Ralston’s motion to suppress. Ralston entered a conditional guilty plea, was
    sentenced to a term of 37 months’ imprisonment, and now appeals from the denial
    of his motion to suppress. We reverse.
    I.    BACKGROUND
    In January 2021, Ralston was living in rural Jones County, Iowa, on property
    that his mother had also been living at before she was moved into a care facility.
    The 9.32-acre parcel of land (“the property”) contains two residences bisected by
    Bear Creek Road. A mobile home is located on the north side of the road and a
    single-family residence sits on the south side. Law enforcement officers believed
    Colton Varty was residing in—or at least “frequenting”—the mobile home and
    Ralston, who had been paroled from prison in November 2020, was living in the
    single-family home (“Ralston’s residence”).
    Investigators identified Varty as a suspect in multiple burglaries occurring
    between December 16 and December 25, 2020. After obtaining and receiving
    information indicating Varty could be storing stolen items on the property, law
    enforcement applied for a search warrant for the property. The affidavit contained
    extensive information regarding Varty’s alleged involvement in burglaries of
    unoccupied buildings and construction trailers. The supporting affidavit outlined in
    detail the information leading law enforcement to “suspect and have probable cause
    to believe, Varty has committed multiple crimes of [this] nature in proximity to
    Ralston’s residence.”
    The warrant authorized the search of Ralston’s residence, the mobile home
    where Varty was frequenting/residing, a machine shed, and two separate storage
    sheds with a physical address of 1221 Bear Creek Road, as well as a blue Jeep
    Liberty Sport owned by Varty. It authorized officers to seize a number of different
    things, including items commonly used in thefts or distribution of stolen property,
    indicia of occupancy, tools burglars use to gain access to locked structures or storage
    containers, property that had been reported as stolen, shoes believed to have been
    worn during the thefts, and tire tracks/treads for comparison.
    The dispute before us pertains to the search of Ralston’s residence located on
    the south side of the property. Ralston contends the warrant did not demonstrate a
    -2-
    nexus between him and Varty to establish probable cause that evidence would be
    located inside his house. In analyzing Ralston’s argument, the magistrate judge
    found: (1) the affidavit supporting the search warrant described the places to be
    searched in overbroad terms; (2) the information in the affidavit connecting Varty to
    the south side of the property was minimal; and (3) the supporting affidavit
    contained no information connecting Varty to Ralston’s residence. In addition to
    finding a want of probable cause, the magistrate judge found the good-faith
    exception did not apply. The government, pointing to the proximity of the two
    residences, the suitability of the property for criminal activity, and Ralston’s
    criminal history, objected to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusion that the
    warrant did not establish a nexus between evidence of Varty’s burglaries and
    Ralston’s residence. The district court was unpersuaded by the government’s
    objections regarding the probable cause determination, but ultimately denied the
    motion to suppress, reversing the magistrate judge’s determination that the good-
    faith exception did not apply.
    As noted by the district court, the affidavit lacked information indicating
    Ralston was involved in any of the break-ins or thefts. It instead disclosed the
    officers’ “suspicion” that Ralston could be involved in fencing stolen property.
    While witnesses reported seeing a vehicle comparable to Varty’s in and around the
    location of the burglaries, Ralston was never alleged to have been seen in the vehicle
    or at the sites. When law enforcement officers observed Varty’s vehicle, it was
    parked primarily on the north side of the road nearest the mobile home. On a single
    occasion, an investigator observed Varty on the south side of the property walking
    towards a parked vehicle that appeared to be like the one Varty was in when he was
    arrested several weeks prior. On this same day, law enforcement also observed a
    UTV that they believed had been stolen in Cedar County. This was the only fact the
    district court could find in the affidavit that attempted to connect Ralston with
    Varty’s well-documented criminal activity. The district court characterized “this
    lone detail” regarding the UTV as insufficient to establish probable cause to search
    Ralston’s residence. Although the district court agreed with the magistrate judge
    that the warrant lacked probable cause, the district court denied Ralston’s motion to
    -3-
    suppress on the ground that the Leon good-faith exception applied. Ralston appeals
    the denial of his motion to suppress.
    II.   DISCUSSION
    When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district
    court’s factual findings for clear error and its Fourth Amendment determination de
    novo. United States v. Mitchell, 
    55 F.4th 620
    , 622 (8th Cir. 2022). On appeal, the
    government briefed only the good-faith exception. Having abandoned the issue of
    whether the search warrant lacked probable cause, see Griffith v. City of Des
    Moines, 
    387 F.3d 733
    , 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (deeming issues not briefed on appeal
    abandoned), we turn to the Leon good-faith exception.
    The Supreme Court held the exclusionary rule should not be applied to bar the
    admission of “evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search
    warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate,” even if that search warrant is
    later determined to be invalid. United States v. Leon, 
    468 U.S. 897
    , 900, 922-23
    (1984). In assessing whether an officer relied in good faith on the validity of a
    warrant, a reviewing court considers the totality of the circumstances, including any
    information known to the officer but not included in the affidavit. United States v.
    Marion, 
    238 F.3d 965
    , 969 (8th Cir. 2001). An officer’s reliance on a search warrant
    is objectively unreasonable in four instances:
    (1) when the affidavit or testimony in support of the warrant included a
    false statement made knowingly and intentionally or with reckless
    disregard for its truth, thus misleading the issuing judge; (2) when the
    judge ‘wholly abandoned his judicial role’ in issuing the warrant; (3)
    when the affidavit in support of the warrant was ‘so lacking in indicia
    of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely
    unreasonable’; and (4) when the warrant is ‘so facially deficient’ that
    the executing officer could not reasonably presume the warrant to be
    valid.
    -4-
    United States v. Grant, 
    490 F.3d 627
    , 632-33 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Leon, 
    468 U.S. at 923
    ). At issue here is the third instance—that is, whether the supporting
    affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer would
    have relied upon a warrant that was issued based on it.
    A review of the affidavit reveals that the law enforcement’s primary basis for
    believing Ralston was involved in Varty’s criminal activity was the proximity of
    their residences located across a road on a rural 9.32-acre parcel of land. Yet, there
    is an absence of facts indicating the two had a relationship beyond neighbors. The
    officers did not know whether Ralston or his mother permitted Varty to live in the
    mobile home on the north side of the road. Neither the officers nor any of the
    confidential sources observed Varty and Ralston together, nor is there evidence of
    Varty accessing or entering Ralston’s residence. Even though one of the
    investigators was familiar with Ralston and had known him for several years, he was
    unable to point to any facts establishing a direct relationship between Ralston and
    Varty. This Court has previously found that no reasonable officer would believe
    probable cause was established to search a defendant’s home when the affidavit
    contained no evidence of illegal activity at the defendant’s home, the defendant was
    never seen at the location where marijuana was discovered, and the defendant was
    not shown to have been associated with past marijuana dealings at a nearby family
    member’s farm. See United States v. Herron, 
    215 F.3d 812
    , 813 (8th Cir. 2000).
    In addition to the absence of a relationship, the affidavit pointed to no facts
    indicating there might be stolen property inside Ralston’s residence or that Ralston
    was fencing stolen property for Varty. Rather, the affidavit contained the officer’s
    general opinion that the rural property was ideal to “utilize as a fence to conceal
    one’s person as well as stolen property.” Despite the surveillance and information
    from confidential sources, officers were only able to connect Varty to the southern
    half of the property where Ralston’s house was situated on two occasions–once when
    the officers saw a UTV they believed had been stolen operating on both sides of the
    road and then the next morning saw it parked on the south side of the road, and on
    that same day Varty was seen on the south side of the property walking towards a
    -5-
    vehicle that Varty had been arrested in several weeks earlier. With no evidence that
    Varty had access to Ralston’s residence or facts pointing to a fair probability that
    Ralston’s residence contained stolen property or was being used to fence stolen
    property, no reasonable officer would have believed the warrant was sufficient to
    establish probable cause to search Ralston’s residence. The circumstances before us
    are distinguishable from this Court’s decision in United States v. Proell, 
    485 F.3d 427
    , 431-432 (8th Cir. 2007), where there was evidence that the defendant had
    access to the two properties sharing a back boundary line, the defendant was
    observed on the neighboring property, and word throughout the small town was that
    the defendant had access to “everything” on the two lots.
    As noted by both the magistrate judge and the district judge, the officer in the
    supporting affidavit conflates the terms “property” and “residence” and does not
    consistently distinguish the single-family home in which Ralston was known to
    reside from the 9.32-acre property. The lack of clarity tends to overstate the nexus
    between Ralston’s home and the suspected criminal activity. This distinction is
    significant because when assessing a challenge to the search of a residence, we are
    to be mindful of the special protection afforded a person’s home under the Fourth
    Amendment. Herron, 
    215 F.3d at 815
    . When multiple people have houses on a
    piece of property, we have explained that “[r]egardless of who actually owned the
    land [the defendant] lived on, or how many other people resided on the same piece
    of property, [the defendant] had a socially recognized expectation of privacy in his
    residence.” United States v. Schroeder, 
    129 F.3d 439
    , 442 (8th Cir. 1997). In
    Schroeder, the Court determined the officers did not act reasonably when they
    assumed the defendant’s camper trailer, which was surrounded with foliage, a ditch,
    a fence, and located on the same parcel identified in the warrant, encompassed “the
    premises and property, including all buildings and vehicles,” mentioned in the
    warrant. 
    Id. at 442-43
    . The officers here knew that Ralston and Varty maintained
    separate residences on the property. Their residences were separated by a road. The
    officers offered little more than a hunch that Ralston’s residence was being used to
    fence property that Varty was stealing. A reasonable officer would understand that
    a prerequisite for a search warrant is probable cause, not a mere suspicion or hunch.
    -6-
    Beyond proximity of the residences and law enforcement’s opinion that the
    rural property was suitable for fencing stolen property, the government points to
    Ralston’s criminal history, which includes prior convictions for burglary and theft,
    past weapons violations, and prior drug convictions, as well as additional facts not
    contained in the search warrant application. The government asks us to give weight
    to law enforcement’s conclusory assertions that the property had been known for
    multiple years as a place where stolen property was fenced, Ralston and Varty were
    unemployed drug users, Ralston had been involved in the sale or distribution of
    narcotics for many years, and a neighbor had recently reported gunfire in the area.
    The officer’s meandering into Ralston’s past weapons violations, drug use,
    and drug convictions is unrelated and immaterial to the offenses—burglary and
    possession/fencing stolen property—that were under investigation in the warrant
    application. It is axiomatic that the nexus required by the Fourth Amendment is
    between the contraband being sought and the place being searched. United States v.
    Keele, 
    589 F.3d 940
    , 943 (8th Cir. 2009). Here, the warrant application did not seek
    evidence of drug possession or distribution of drugs or possession of a firearm by a
    prohibited person. While the affidavit contained information regarding increased
    short-term traffic on the property, which the government asserts is indicative of
    criminal activity, it is unclear from the affidavit whether the increased traffic was on
    the property in general, was to Varty’s mobile home, or was travelling to and from
    Ralston’s residence. The affiant officer subsequently testified that he “believed” the
    neighbors were referring to both sides of the property and his deputies on night shift
    had observed traffic “to both sides of the property to some extent.” This information
    led the affiant to believe Ralston was engaged in drug trafficking. Even with the
    purported clarification, there is nothing specific implicating Ralston’s residence as
    a location where there was a fair probability that stolen tools or other contraband
    identified in the warrant application would be found. The government’s efforts to
    demonstrate law enforcement officers had an objectively reasonable basis to rely on
    the search warrant are unavailing.
    -7-
    The issuing judge has been the only judge to find the existence of probable
    cause to search Ralston’s residence. Both the reviewing magistrate judge and the
    district judge found probable cause to search Ralston’s residence lacking. More than
    30 years ago, the Court stated that mere association with a known or suspected
    criminal or the presence in a location known to be involved in criminal activity does
    not establish probable cause. United States v. Everroad, 
    704 F.2d 403
    , 406 (8th Cir.
    1983). Armed with only the proximity of residences on rural property, conclusory
    assertions that lacked a nexus to Ralston’s residence or the targeted offenses, and no
    evidence of a relationship between Ralston and Varty or evidence that Varty had
    access to Ralston’s house, a reasonable officer would not believe there was a
    sufficient nexus to establish probable cause to search Ralston’s residence for
    evidence related to the burglaries or fencing stolen property. While the affidavit was
    detailed, focused, and probative as to Varty’s criminal activity, it said little about
    Ralston and lacked any specifics connecting Ralston or his residence to the offenses
    under investigation. Given the paucity of evidence as to Ralston, law enforcement
    should have been aware of the affidavit’s deficiencies. The additional information
    not included in the affidavit that consists of conclusory assertions and details
    unrelated to the offenses under investigation does not cure the deficiencies.
    After careful review of the entire record and the parties’ arguments, we find
    the good-faith exception inapplicable under the circumstances of this case.
    III.   CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we remand the case to the district court and direct
    the court to vacate Ralston’s guilty plea and to grant his motion to suppress.
    ______________________________
    -8-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-3352

Filed Date: 12/14/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/14/2023