United States v. Forest Shields

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 5 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30246
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:16-cr-00012-JLQ-1
v.
FOREST JACOB SHIELDS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2017**
Seattle, Washington
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Forest Jacob Shields challenges the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress. Shields argues the warrant was not supported by
probable cause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The warrant to search the Motel 6 was supported by probable cause.1 The
affidavit by Detective Randy Lesser established “that there [was] a fair probability
that contraband or evidence of a crime [would] be found in” the Motel 6 where
Shields was hiding. United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2006)
(alterations in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
There is a clear nexus between the Motel 6 and the firearms sought by the
police to establish probable cause that evidence relating to attempted murder with a
handgun would be found there. The affidavit states that Shields’ girlfriend was
seen leaving the Motel 6 and that she was the person Shields allegedly gave the
firearm to immediately after the commission of the crime. There was sufficient
evidence to believe both she and Shields were living there. These statements
create a sufficient nexus between the place to be searched, the Motel 6, and the
items to be seized; “[a]ny firearms, holster or gun boxes, bullets or shell casings,
any expended bullets or bullet fragments.” See United States v. Crews, 502 F.3d
1130, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 2007). In addition, under the law of this Circuit, it is
reasonable that a gun would be found in the place where the perpetrator was
residing, even eight days after the crime. See United States v. Bowers, 534 F.2d
1In finding that the warrant was supported by probable cause, we need not reach
the good-faith exception argument. See United States v. Crews, 502 F.3d 1130(9th Cir. 2007) (finding the court can reach either the probable cause argument or
the good-faith exception).
2
186, 192–93 (9th Cir. 1976) (finding the murder weapon would likely be found in
the home of the defendant six weeks after the murder was committed).
The affidavit also established probable cause for electronic devices, cell
phones, and documents. The probable cause requirement “is a fluid concept—
turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts—not
readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Adjani, 452 F.3d at
1145 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983)). The affidavit
establishes that a witness to the crime was texting Shields to arrange a drug
transaction just prior to its commission, which establishes that a cell phone might
contain evidence of the crime. Based upon the crime alleged and the thorough
affidavit summarizing the particularized police investigation, the district court
judge made the “reasonable inference” that this type of evidence would be found in
the motel where Shields was hiding. See United States v. Jackson, 756 F.2d 703,
705 (9th Cir. 1985).
The affidavit was not an overly broad request for electronic devices, cell
phones, or documents. In United States v. Reeves, we explained that “catch-all
phrases,” such as “may include, but is not limited to,” used in the context of a
police investigation “adequately limits the scope of the search and thus prevents it
from being overbroad.” 210 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Here, the affidavit limits the search to “[a]ny cells phones in the room,” “[a]ny
3
electronic devices that might contain evidence of the crime,” and “[a]ny documents
(including photographs) that might contain evidence of the crime.” These
statements are sufficiently specific to limit the scope of the search.
Further, the affidavit supports probable cause to search for Shields’ clothes,
gloves, hats, shoes, and keys. It is common sense that when a person shoots
someone within close range, as occurred here, blood splatter or other forensic
evidence could be found on the defendant’s clothing and personal effects. Gates,
462 U.S. at 231 (finding probable cause relies on “the factual and practical
considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal
technicians, act”) (citation omitted). The district court reasonably found probable
cause to support the search for Shields’ personal items, such as clothing, gloves,
hats, shoes, and keys to the suspect’s vehicle which was registered to the girlfriend
and driven by Shields at the time of the shooting.
Finally, as Shields was seen jumping out of the window of the Motel 6 when
officers arrived to arrest him, the police would want to establish that he had been in
the room for a longer period of time “to establish the identity of persons and
control of premises” through DNA, fingerprint, and dominion-and-control
paperwork evidence. United States v. Marques, 600 F.2d 742, 751 n. 5 (9th Cir.
1979). It was reasonable for the district court to find that probable cause supported
searching for this evidence as well.
4
We hold the district court judge had a “substantial basis for concluding that
the supporting affidavit established probable cause[,]” United States v. Clark, 31
F.3d 831, 834 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted), and a fair probability that
evidence linking Shields to the crime for which he was wanted would be found in
the room.
AFFIRMED.
5