U.S. v. Scott

Citation260 F.3d 512
Decision Date12 June 2001
Docket NumberNo. 00-5126,00-5126
Parties(6th Cir. 2001) United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Ray Scott, Defendant-Appellant. Argued:
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Perry H. Piper, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Howard Upchurch, UPCHURCH & UPCHURCH, Pikeville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Before: MARTIN, Chief Judge; NORRIS, Circuit Judge; QUIST, District Judge.*

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR.,

Donald Scott appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that was issued by a retired judge. The district court found that although the search warrant was improperly issued, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. We conclude that because the issuing authority in this case had no legal authority to sign the search warrant, the warrant was void ab initio. We therefore reverse the district court.

I.

On April 7, 1999, a police informant notified Sequatchie County Sheriff's Investigator Jackie Shell that he had seen a large quantity of marijuana growing in an outbuilding on Donald Scott's property. Shell drafted an affidavit and search warrant, and at approximately two or three o'clock in the afternoon, contacted the Honorable L. Thomas Austin, Judge of the General Sessions Court for Sequatchie County, Tennessee. Judge Austin told Shell that he would be at his house or his barn throughout the afternoon, and that Shell should bring the warrant to him there. The record contains an affidavit signed by Judge Austin stating that he was at his home that entire afternoon and evening. After preparing the affidavit, Shell apparently called Judge Austin, but there was no answer. Shell then attempted to contact the Honorable Curtis Smith, Circuit Judge for the Twelfth Judicial District, but was informed that Judge Smith was out of the county. Two other circuit judges served the twelfth district, but Shell did not contact either one. Shell then called the Honorable Hollis Barker, a retired judge of the General Sessions Court for Sequatchie County. Barker was Judge Austin's predecessor, having served as general sessions judge for twenty-three years until he resigned in December of 1997 or January of 1998. Although retired, Judge Barker acted as Special Judge for the General Sessions Court when Judge Austin was absent. Since his retirement, Judge Barker had signed warrants for Investigator Shell on three prior occasions -- one or two of which were signed in court when Judge Barker was sitting for Judge Austin. Judge Barker signed the warrant, and Shell executed a search of Scott's property. In the outbuilding, Shell found four hundred and one marijuana plants, grow lights and chemicals. Scott arrived in the course of this search, and was arrested. The following day, officers searched Scott's house, where they found fifteen firearms.

After being charged in a four-count indictment, Scott moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his property. The district court denied the motion in part, finding that although Judge Barker did not have legal authority to issue a warrant, the exclusionary rule did not apply because Shell acted in objective good faith in securing the warrant.1 Scott then entered a conditional guilty plea, which reserved his right to challenge the search, to two counts: manufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), and forfeiture of property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 853. The other two counts were dismissed by the court upon motion by the United States. The district court sentenced Scott to the statutory mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment, and Scott appealed.

II.

We review a district court's legal conclusions with respect to a motion to suppress de novo. See United States v. Lewis, 231 F.3d 238, 241 (6th Cir. 2000). A district court's findings of fact will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Id.

Subject to a few exceptions, the exclusionary rule requires the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 347 (1987). See also Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 (1971) ("the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that 'searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.'") (citations omitted ) (emphasis in original). In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the Supreme Court carved out a good-faith exception to this general rule, holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence seized by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate that is subsequently found to be invalid. The focus of the inquiry is "whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization." Id. at 922 n.23. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the good faith exception applies when an officer reasonably relies on a judge's assurances that he would make necessary clerical changes in a warrant, see Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 990 (1984); when an officer conducts a search in reasonable reliance on the constitutionality of a statute subsequently declared unconstitutional, see Krull, 480 U.S. at 349; and when an officer reasonably relies on information regarding an outstanding arrest warrant later found to be a clerical error of court employees. See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 14 (1995).

No circuit has addressed the issue of whether Leon applies when an officer relies on a warrant signed by an individual wholly without legal authority to issue a warrant. The only court that has addressed this scenario is the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. See State v. Nunez, 634 A.2d 1167 (R. I. 1993). In that case, the court suppressed evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant issued by a retired judge. Nunez, 634 A.2d at 1170. Nunez was decided under state law, and the decision explicitly declined to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Bosteder v. City of Renton, 74934-5.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 28, 2005
    ...the beginning. A couple of lower federal courts, however, have ruled on the issue and found such warrants void. In United States v. Scott, 260 F.3d 512, 515 (6th Cir.2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that "when a warrant is signed by someone who lacks the ......
  • United States v. Werdene, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 15-434
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • May 18, 2016
    ......Gabriel Werdene, Defendant. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 15-434 United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. Signed May 18, 2016 188 F.Supp.3d 435 US, for Plaintiff(s) Laurie Magid, Esq., for Defendant(s) MEMORANDUM PAPPERT, District Judge Gabriel Werdene ("Werdene") was indicted on September ... Id. at 38–43, 2016 WL 2596010, at *10–13. In doing so, it relied on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals's decision in United States v. Scott , 260 F.3d 512 (6th Cir.2001). The Levin court stated that while "the Supreme Court has expanded the good-faith exception to contexts beyond those ......
  • State v. Hess
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 15, 2010
    ......, ¶ 26; United States v. Scott , 260 F.3d 512, 515 (6th Cir.2001); Bosteder v. City of Renton , 155 Wash.2d 18, 117 P.3d 316, 323 (2005); State v. Wilson , 618 N.W.2d 513, 520 ...4         ¶ 32 These cases lead us to conclude that because the statutes did not authorize a warrant under these circumstances, the warrant was void ab initio . In such a situation, ......
  • United States v. Werdene, 16-3588
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • February 21, 2018
    ...who lacks the legal authority necessary to issue search warrants, the warrant is void ab initio .") (quoting United States v. Scott , 260 F.3d 512, 515 (6th Cir. 2001) ); see also Horton , 863 F.3d at 1049 ("[T]he NIT warrant was void ab initio ...."); United States v. Baker , 894 F.2d 1144......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT