United States v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 27 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-2686,20-2686 |
| Citation | 12 F.4th 647 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kyle S. MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Laura Reppert, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Criminal Division, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff - Appellee.
Todd M. Schultz, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, East St. Louis, IL, for Defendant - Appellant.
Before Ripple, Hamilton, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.
The Clinton County, Illinois, Sheriff's Office executed a search warrant on a property where Kyle Matthews lived in a camper trailer. The warrant authorized the police to search every structure on the premises in the belief that Mr. Matthews lived on and had access to the whole property. The Sheriff's Office, however, had not offered the issuing judge much information to substantiate this belief.
The evidence found during the search led to a federal indictment, and Mr. Matthews moved to exclude the fruits of the search. The district court held that the warrant was not supported by probable cause to believe that any of the suspected crimes were linked to the property. The district court nevertheless concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied and therefore denied the motion to suppress. Mr. Matthews pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle that had been found at his home, but he conditioned his plea on an appeal of the denial of the motion to suppress the evidence.
We affirm the judgment of the district court. An objectively reasonable officer, having consulted with the State's Attorney in the preparation of the complaint and affidavit accompanying the application for the warrant, could have relied in good faith on the search warrant that he obtained from a judge. The warrant here, although incomplete, was not so utterly lacking in indicia of probable cause that suppression is justified.
On Saturday, March 31, 2018, Michael Long—an employee at an auto-parts store in Carlyle, Illinois—overheard his coworker discussing pipe bombs with Mr. Matthews in the store. Long heard the two men share their excitement about a bomb that they had detonated the previous day; they also discussed where to place another bomb that Mr. Matthews appeared to be carrying with him. They considered a local church and a school, as well as a competing auto-parts store and a car dealership.
Concerned about the danger that these two men and their plan posed, Long called the Clinton County Sheriff's Office late on Sunday evening. Detective Sergeant Charles Becherer opened an investigation. He interviewed Long, who explained that Mr. Matthews was a frequent customer and that he knew Mr. Matthews owned a "highly modified" AR-15 with a silencer, lived in a camper trailer behind "the old Fin & Feather Restaurant," worked on his cars in the nearby shed, and had "free reign of the property."1 Detective Becherer also consulted with his colleagues in the Sheriff's Office and learned that someone living near the Fin & Feather restaurant had called about an explosion that past Friday and that Mr. Matthews's public social-media posts showed that he possessed explosive materials. Another detective reported that he had spoken with a local resident who said "the word on the street" was that Mr. Matthews possessed bombs.2
Following his regular practice, Detective Becherer promptly consulted with the State's Attorney, who began drafting a complaint for a search warrant and a supporting affidavit. The affidavit outlined the conversation Long had overheard at the store (but not the rest of Detective Becherer's interview) and listed the other officers’ discoveries. The complaint sought authorization to search all buildings and structures on the property of the former Fin & Feather restaurant at 21000 North Emerald Road, including the motor home and camper trailer behind the restaurant building, for any explosives, explosive materials, firearms, or ammunition. This motor home and camper trailer, the complaint asserted, were "believed to be occupied by persons including Kyle S. Matthews ... who is also believed to have access to all other structures and building [sic] situated on the premises."3 Nothing in the complaint or affidavit explained specifically how Detective Becherer or the State's Attorney had come to this belief. Rather, the affidavit stated generally that Detective Becherer had, "in the course of [his] investigation ... obtained the information contained herein, some by personal interviews and some through other law enforcement officers."4
On Monday morning, the State's Attorney and Detective Becherer completed the complaint and submitted it to a judge of the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Illinois. In his affidavit, Detective Becherer again stated only that the buildings pictured were "believed to be the residence of Suspect."5 Attached to the affidavit were pictures of the Fin & Feather property that Detective Becherer had taken earlier that morning, but the pictures included no clearly identifying features, such as a street number. After reviewing the exhibits, the judge heard testimony from Long, who summarized again the conversation he had overheard and identified Mr. Matthews from a photograph. Detective Becherer also testified. He reaffirmed and signed his affidavit before the judge, and explained his intent to search "the entire property where [Mr. Matthews has] been staying which is at the Fin and Feather restaurant," including the several outbuildings, because it was his "understanding [that] Mr. Matthews has access to all those places."6 The judge determined there was probable cause to believe Mr. Matthews had materials to commit terrorism, among other crimes, stored at the Fin & Feather property and signed the warrant.
Just over an hour later, a joint team including Detective Becherer and members of the Clinton County Sheriff's Office, other local law enforcement agencies, the Illinois Secretary of State Police Hazardous Device Unit, and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms arrived at the old Fin & Feather restaurant to execute the search warrant. They found multiple firearms, silencers, a pipe bomb, and more explosive materials. Mr. Matthews was present at the time of the search, as were two other individuals.
A grand jury later indicted Mr. Matthews for possessing a machine gun, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), an unregistered silencer, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and an unregistered short-barreled rifle, id.
Mr. Matthews moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the Fin & Feather property. The warrant was fatally overbroad, he asserted, because it extended to every building on the property, and it otherwise failed to establish a nexus between his alleged illegal activity and the property. The Government asked the district court to deny the motion to suppress solely because Detective Becherer had executed the warrant in good faith. It did not maintain that the warrant was supported by probable cause.
Although the Government relied on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, the district court nevertheless determined that it was appropriate to examine the probable-cause question and to determine whether the warrant was invalid. The evidence convinced the district court that the state court judge and Sheriff's Office had reason to suspect that Mr. Matthews might have been involved in criminal activity. The district court noted, however, that Detective Becherer had offered the state court judge little evidence linking either Mr. Matthews or his suspected crimes to the Fin & Feather property, let alone to every single structure on the property.
The district court then considered whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. This exception permits the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment if the officers conducted the search in good-faith reliance on a warrant. United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 918–23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). In finding good faith, the district court noted Detective Becherer's choice to consult with the State's Attorney before filing the complaint. It also emphasized the many details Long had given Detective Becherer about Mr. Matthews's living situation. Based on this information, the district court concluded that the detective had strong reason to believe that probable cause existed to search Mr. Matthews's camper, the surrounding land, and the other buildings. The court acknowledged that Detective Becherer never "articulated the reasons for that belief in his affidavit or testimony" but thought the "exigency of the situation may have contributed to the error."7
Mr. Matthews promptly sought reconsideration of its ruling. As he saw it, the district court's analysis rested on facts that Detective Becherer knew but never had offered to the state court judge who had issued the warrant. He argued that the good-faith exception prohibited resort to any evidence not presented to the state court judge.
Relying on our decision in United States v. Koerth , 312 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2002), the district court agreed with Mr. Matthews that it should not have relied on evidence not presented to the state court judge. But it determined that the outcome was the same. The state court judge had heard Detective Becherer's testimony about intending to search the entirety of the Fin & Feather property, saw the pictures identified as that property, and knew that Detective Becherer had interviewed Long. The failure to connect expressly these pieces of evidence did not render unreasonable Detective Becherer's reliance on the state court judge's determination that there was probable cause to search the property.
Mr. Matthews pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), but conditioned his plea on his right to appeal the denial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lewis
...§ 2703(d) order suggests that Officer Harshman made a good-faith attempt to comply with a then-valid statute. Cf. United States v. Matthews , 12 F.4th 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2021) ("Although it is the Government's burden to demonstrate that the officer was acting in objective good faith, an off......
-
United States v. Barnett
...of his good faith.” Matthews, 12 F.4th at 653. That being the case here, Defendant bears the “heavy” burden “to rebut that presumption.” Id. (citing Edmonds United States, 899 F.3d 446, 453 (7th Cir. 2018)). As explained below, Defendant failed to rebut the Government's showing of good-fait......
-
United States v. Chatrie
...seeking geofence warrants-he had sought three before applying for this one. Magistrates and prosecutors had approved all three. See Matthews, 12 F.4th at 656 (noting the "general principle that attorney supports a finding of good faith"). Det. Hylton testified that these prior warrants were......
- Hodge v. Jordan