United States v. Steven Maxwell
778 F.3d 719 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant moving to suppress evidence has the burden of proving a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched and cannot meet this burden by relying solely on a statement within a search warrant affidavit that the defendant simultaneously contends is recklessly false.
Facts:
- An informant, John Curtis Clark, told police he sold stolen wallets to a man named 'Lucky' who lived in a specific apartment complex and drove a black Yukon.
- Police located a black Yukon at the apartment complex and, through further investigation, identified 'Lucky' as Gordon Lamarr Moore and the apartment as #234.
- Officer Thomas Steffen applied for a search warrant for apartment #234, stating in his affidavit that Moore was 'living at' that address and owned the black Yukon.
- Based on the warrant, police searched the apartment and seized evidence connecting Moore to criminal activity.
- It was later determined that statements in the affidavit were incorrect; Clark had not identified Moore by name or the specific apartment number, and the black Yukon was registered to Moore's girlfriend, not Moore.
Procedural Posture:
- Gordon Lamarr Moore was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and other offenses in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
- Moore filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrant search of an apartment, arguing the warrant affidavit contained false statements.
- A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, finding Moore had standing and that the affidavit violated the standard set in Franks v. Delaware.
- The district court judge rejected the magistrate's recommendation and denied the motion to suppress, ruling that Moore had failed to meet his burden of proof to establish his Fourth Amendment standing in the apartment.
- The district court subsequently denied Moore’s motion to reopen the record to introduce evidence on the issue of standing.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Moore.
- Moore, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant meet his burden of establishing Fourth Amendment standing to challenge a search by relying exclusively on a statement in the supporting warrant affidavit which he is also seeking to discredit as recklessly false under Franks v. Delaware?
Opinions:
Majority - Loken, Circuit Judge.
No. A defendant does not meet his burden of proving a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched premises by relying exclusively on a statement in the warrant affidavit that he is simultaneously attacking as recklessly false. The defendant moving to suppress bears the burden of proving a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. This burden requires the defendant to present affirmative evidence of their standing; they cannot simply rely on the government's assertions in court filings or, in this case, in a challenged affidavit. Here, Moore presented no evidence of his privacy interest in the apartment, relying entirely on a statement in the officer's affidavit—that Moore was 'living at' the apartment—which Moore himself was arguing was part of a pattern of recklessly false statements. The district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that an affidavit of 'dubious validity,' which the defendant himself sought to discredit, was insufficient to satisfy Moore's burden of proof for establishing standing.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that Fourth Amendment standing is a threshold burden that a defendant must affirmatively prove and cannot take for granted. It creates a clear rule that a defendant cannot strategically use a statement from a government affidavit to establish standing while simultaneously arguing that the same affidavit is unreliable and contains falsehoods to invalidate the warrant. This holding underscores the importance for defense counsel to prepare and present independent evidence of a client's expectation of privacy, rather than relying on the government's own allegations. The ruling solidifies the separation between the procedural requirement of standing and the substantive merits of a suppression motion.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Steven Maxwell