United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J.
RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Suppress Evidence [Doc. 29] and the United States'
Response [Doc. 32]. For the reasons herein, the Court will
deny Defendant's motion.
I.
Background
On
October 30, 2018, Corporal Trevor Salyer, a local law
enforcement officer with the Elizabethton Police Department,
appeared before the Honorable Lisa Rice, a state
criminal-court judge, with an affidavit in support of a
search warrant for Defendant Chadwick Dunford's residence
and vehicle. [Aff., Doc. 30, at 4]. In the affidavit,
Corporal Salyer alleged that he had probable cause to believe
that Mr. Dunford was currently, and unlawfully, in possession
of firearms and ammunition, in violation of Tennessee Code
Annotated § 39-17-1307. [Id.]. He noted that
Mr. Dunford, in 2016, had been convicted of aggravated
assault, a felony offense under Tennessee Code Annotated
39-13-102. [Id. at 5]. In addition, Corporal Salyer
alleged that he had probable cause to believe that the
firearms and ammunition were located in Mr. Dunford's
residence and vehicle. [Id. at 4].
As
support for his belief that Mr. Dunford was unlawfully in
possession of firearms and ammunition, Corporal Salyer
recounted various events involving Mr. Dunford. The first
event dealt with a complaint that an individual made against
Mr. Dunford for harassment on October 28, 2018,
[1] and
it prompted an officer in the Elizabethton Police Department
to issue a “complaint slip for incident
reporting” to Mr. Dunford. [Id. at 4-5]. The
second event, which took place on October 29, 2018, stemmed
from a visit that Mr. Dunford made to the Elizabethton Police
Department, where he inquired about pressing charges against
the same person who had filed a complaint against him.
[Id. at 5]. When the clerk advised him of the cost
associated with filing charges, he “got upset and said,
‘I'll just take care of it myself. I was an Army
Ranger . . . so I know how to handle it!'”
[Id.]. Later in that same day, Mr. Dunford visited
the local district attorney's office, where he met with
an assistant district attorney and complained he had been
robbed. [Id.]. When the assistant district attorney
informed him that his complaint was not viable, he
“became angry, ” and “he stated that he
would have to handle things his way since no one would help
him.” [Id.].
On the
following day, October 30, 2018, Mr. Dunford uploaded a post
to his Facebook page, and, in part, it read:
ONE DAY SOON THE CITIZENS ARE GOING TO GET FED UP WITH THE
OVER AND THE ALSO PATHETICALLY UNDER POLICING AND THEY WILL
RISE UP AND FIGHT AND RETALIATE BACK AGAINST ALL THE . . .
ASSHOLE COPS . . . IT'S GONNA BE HELL BUT I CANNOT WAIT
TO SHOW WHAT COMBAT VETERANS ARE CAPABLE OF WHEN THEY'VE
BEEN PUSHED AROUND ENOUGH AND DECIDE TO PUSH, FIGHT AND SHOOT
BACK[.] I FEAR NOTHING OR NO MAN BUT GOD, JESUS AND THE HOLY
SPIRT . . . . WE ARE COMING AND YOU'LL NEVER SEE OR HEAR
U.S. COMING UNTIL IT'S WAY TOO LATE[.]
[Id. at 4].[2] Mr. Dunford also contemporaneously
uploaded photos alongside this post, including a photo of
himself during his time in the military, a photo of himself
with firearms at a shooting range, [3] a photo of the Elizabethton
Police Department's “complaint slip for incident
reporting, ” and a photo of a “magazine fed
rifle, ” a “drum fed rifle, ” a
“pistol with a magazine seated in it, ” and a
combat vest with magazine pouches attached to it.
[Id. at 5]. A short while later, he uploaded a
second Facebook post, in which he referred to “PUNKS
HIDING BEHIND A BADGE AND GUN” and wrote that
“THEIR TIME IS COMING SOON.” [Id.].
According
to Corporal Salyer, the photo of the firearms and ammunition
“appeared to be taken in a residence, ”
[id.], though he noted only that it was uploaded to
Facebook in the early morning hours of October 30, 2018, and
that a grocery basket was visible in the background of the
photo.[4] Corporal Salyer, based on his training and
professional experience, also asserted that rifles are
“long guns” and “are extremely difficult to
conceal on one's person.” [Id. at 6]. He
stated that, as a result, “it is common practice”
for individuals to store these types of guns “within a
residence or the trunk compartment of a vehicle.”
[Id.]. On October 30, 2018, Judge Rice, after
reviewing the affidavit, approved a search warrant for the
immediate search of Mr. Dunford's residence, vehicles,
and outbuildings or parcels associated with his residence.
[Search Warrant, Doc. 30, at 3].
Officers
executed the search warrant on that same date, and they found
in Mr. Dunford's residence a Glock 43, a 9mm Glock
magazine, a high-capacity 9mm magazine, five .223 loaded
magazines, three 12 gauge shotgun shells, a Silver Eagle 12
gauge shotgun, a 75 round capacity 7.62 drum, a tactical
vest, an ammo can full of assorted ammunition, an ammo belt
with assorted ammunition, three boxes of 9mm ammunition,
three boxes of .223 ammunition, and two boxes of shotgun
shells. [Evid. Recovery Log, Doc. 30, at 8-9].[5] In Mr.
Dunford's vehicle, the officers found an AR-556 rifle, an
AK-47 pistol, a .223 magazine, and a bandolier with shotgun
shells. [Id. at 10]. On the day after the search,
the United States charged Mr. Dunford with being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1). [Compl., Doc. 1; see Indictment, Doc.
12].
Mr.
Dunford now moves to suppress all the evidence that the
officers discovered during their search of his residence and
his vehicle, contending that Corporal Salyer's affidavit
“failed to establish probable cause to believe that
evidence of a crime would be found at the places to be
searched.” [Def.'s Mot. Suppress at 3]. In response
to his motion, the Court held a suppression hearing. The
Court is now prepared to rule on Mr. Dunford's motion.
II.
Legal Standard
“[I]t
undoubtedly is within [a federal court's] power to
consider the question whether probable cause existed”
to support the issuance of a search warrant. United
States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 905 (1984). When reviewing
a search warrant for probable cause, the district court does
not write on “a blank slate.” United States
v. Tagg, 886 F.3d 579, 586 (6th Cir. 2018). In other
words, the district court does not engage in a de novo
review, or “after-the-fact scrutiny, ” when
considering whether the judicial officer who issued the
search warrant had probable cause to do so. Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). Instead, the judicial
officer “should be paid great deference” from the
district court. Id. (quotation omitted). The United
States carries the burden of establishing that the four
corners of a search warrant support a finding of probable
cause. United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 572
(6th Cir. 2006).
III.
...