Two years after ruling that Colorado Springs police used an unconstitutional search warrant to recover illegally owned guns from a man’s property, the federal appeals court based in Denver has conceded the officers nonetheless acted in good faith.

The decision means the key evidence of a crime – the guns themselves – did not need to be excluded from the trial of Perry Wayne Suggs Jr. Consequently, his criminal conviction and 90-month sentence will stand, despite the original search warrant’s illegality.

In June 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit determined the warrant Colorado Springs officers used to search Suggs’ home was invalid largely because it authorized police to seize “any item identified as being involved in crime.” Lacking any context about the specific crime being investigated, the document violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that warrants describe “particularly” the things to be searched for.

Normally, evidence obtained illegally is excluded from trial in order to discourage police misconduct. However, there are exceptions to that rule, including if the police acted in good faith in believing the warrant was valid. The 10th Circuit at the time declined to say whether the good faith exception applied, but deemed it a “close” call.

On Tuesday, a different panel of judges agreed on the closeness of the question, but ultimately decided police searched Suggs’ home with the understanding they were only looking for evidence of the specific crime under investigation, not all conceivable criminal activity.

“While the warrant’s text failed to satisfy our particularity analysis under the Fourth Amendment, a reasonable officer could have understood the warrant as limited to the shooting crime under investigation and presumed the warrant to be valid,” wrote Judge Allison H. Eid for herself and Senior Judge Michael R. Murphy.

Judge Gregory A. Phillips disagreed. He believed the warrant was so clearly illegal that reasonable officers could not rely on it to conduct a good-faith search. As a result, he would have barred the seized guns from being used against Suggs at trial.

“Suppressing the evidence in this case would deter police officers and departments from drafting warrants that serve as blank checks to search for evidence of any crime,” Phillips wrote.

Case: United States v. Suggs

Decided: June 13, 2023

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado

Ruling: 2-1

Judges: Allison H. Eid (author)

Michael R. Murphy

Gregory A. Phillips (dissent)

Background: Court: Colorado Springs police used unconstitutional warrant to seize guns

In early January 2018, police investigated an incident in Colorado Springs where a driver shot at a pedestrian, but did not injure him. The vehicle was linked to Suggs and the shooter matched his description.

Officer Adam Menter obtained a warrant from an El Paso County judge to search Suggs’ home. Although Menter submitted a three-page description of the shooting and of his investigation, the warrant only referenced a document listing the objects to be seized. The list included “any and all firearms,” “vehicle registration” and – under a section titled “MISCELLANEOUS” – “any item identified as being involved in crime.”

Police encountered Suggs at a gas station and arrested him, then turned to the search of Suggs’ home. They eventually found a box of ammunition that matched the bullet from the shooting.

Prior to that discovery, Officer Teresa Tomczyk, who was in charge of “sweeping” the premises for potential threats to police, shined her flashlight into a vehicle parked in Suggs’ carport – a different vehicle than the shooter used. She spotted two guns inside. Tomczyk alerted Menter, who applied for a second warrant to seize the guns.

A federal grand jury indicted Suggs for possessing guns and ammunition, which his criminal record prohibited him from owning. In response, Suggs argued the search warrant was illegal in the first place and the evidence seized from his home could not be used against him. U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez disagreed, and a jury convicted him in 2019.

On appeal, the 10th Circuit panel sided with Suggs. The court found the warrant’s authorization to seize “any item … involved in crime” was too broad.

“Nowhere does the warrant reference any specific offense – let alone the particular firearm-related crime under investigation. In fact, the warrant never even mentions the vehicle shooting,” wrote Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock.

However, because it was possible the officers really did understand the limited nature of the search and acted in good faith, the panel returned the case to Martínez for another look. The judge acknowledged it was a “close call,” but again upheld the search.

Even though Menter testified he could not remember exactly what he told the other officers about the search, Martínez believed it plausible that the police were aware of the vehicle shooting and were only looking for evidence related to that offense. Moreover, Tomczyk, who discovered the guns, was not even involved in the “search,” as her job was simply to sweep for threats, wrote the judge.

Once again, Suggs appealed to the 10th Circuit. The government defended Martínez’s finding of good faith, with the officers relying on Menter’s understanding of the search warrant’s parameters.

“It’s general sloppiness. It’s cutting corners. It’s not reviewing good enough,” Phillips mused during oral arguments. “But the information was there.”

The panel’s majority concluded the evidence supported the notion that Menter had properly conveyed the limits of the search to other officers, despite the warrant’s seemingly unlimited language. Suppressing the guns, therefore, was uncalled-for.

“Officer Menter’s actions are not the kind of flagrant or deliberate violation that the rule was meant to deter,” Eid wrote on June 13.

Phillips ultimately declined to evaluate the officers’ actions. Because the warrant was “obviously” not compliant with the Fourth Amendment, executing the search was inherently unreasonable, he argued.

The case is United States v. Suggs.