United States v. Becker.
No. 24-1331. 3/9/2026. D.Colo. Judge Hartz. Search Warrant—Probable Cause—Motion to Suppress—Constitutionality of 18 USC § 922(g)(1).
March 9, 2026
Police investigated an alleged road rage incident that occurred in Denver. The incident and subsequent investigation were described in Denver Police Department Detective Sloan’s affidavit for a search warrant (the warrant). According to the warrant, the victim told officers that he observed a driver commit several serious traffic violations while merging onto the interstate, and the victim pulled next to the other driver to “speak” with him. The other driver brandished a firearm, so the victim drove toward the nearest exit. The other driver followed the victim, pulled alongside his vehicle, and fired a shot in his direction. The victim took a picture of the other driver’s vehicle—a gray automobile—though Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records for the vehicle’s license plate showed that the plate was attributed to a green Saab. The green Saab was registered to Becker at a South Parker Road apartment address, and Becker’s driver’s license photo matched the victim’s description of the other driver. Sloan also discovered that Becker had several active arrest warrants and two prior felony convictions that prohibited him from possessing a firearm. Officers visited the apartment address and found a green Saab bearing the same plate number as the car from the incident, but the car appeared to be abandoned. A search of records from license plate readers showed that a plate with the same number had been seen on a gray Saab sedan 10 days before the road rage incident. Sloan searched several law enforcement databases and found a second address for Becker on West Iliff Lane. Officers visited the West Iliff Lane house and found a gray Saab parked in the driveway that was “identical” to the car involved in the incident and that had the same plate number as the car from the incident and the green Saab seen at South Parker Road. Several days later, officers observed Becker exiting the West Iliff Lane house and entering the gray car several times. They also saw Becker hand-washing the car in the house’s driveway.
Sloan subsequently obtained a warrant to search the West Iliff Lane house and the gray Saab for firearms, ammunition, and items that would establish who controlled the premises. Police executed the warrant and discovered evidence of drug trafficking, so they obtained a second warrant to search the house for further evidence and found fentanyl, cocaine, firearms, and ammunition. Becker was indicted on four gun and drug charges. He moved to suppress the evidence of the searches, arguing that the affidavit for the first search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The district court denied the motion. Becker pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
On appeal, Becker argued that the affidavit did not support the inference that he lived at the West Iliff Lane address. He stated that the warrant did not detail a substantive investigation ruling out the South Parker Road apartment as his residence and confirming who owned or rented the West Iliff Lane house. Becker also maintained that the affidavit relied on vague references to police databases and didn’t identify the contents of those databases. Here, while the affidavit did not state which law enforcement databases associated Becker with the West Iliff Lane house, at least one linked him to the address, so it could reasonably be inferred that the house was a residence of Becker’s. And police surveillance corroborated the attribution. The affidavit thus established probable cause that evidence of the road rage incident would be found at the searched house.
Becker also argued that even if the affidavit connected him to the West Iliff Lane house, it did not connect the road rage incident to that address because three weeks passed between that incident and Sloan’s search warrant application, so officers could no longer reasonably infer that the firearm would be there. However, Sloan’s affidavit provided additional evidence connecting the West Iliff Lane house to the incident, and law enforcement experience, precedent, and common sense strongly support an inference that the firearm would be kept at the user’s residence. And three weeks is an insufficient amount of time to defeat the inference that the firearm was at Becker’s residence.
Lastly, Becker contended that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. He attempted to preserve this challenge in case the US Supreme Court hears a case addressing the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) before his conviction becomes final. But Becker conceded that at the present time this argument is foreclosed by Tenth Circuit precedent, which decided the issue of § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality against him.
The judgment was affirmed.