United States v. Gaye.
No. 23-1240. 3/10/2025. D.Colo. Judge Tymkovich. Search Warrant—Bullet Removed With Patient’s Consent—False Report of a Crime—Felon in Possession of a Firearm—Fourth Amendment—Motion to Suppress.
March 10, 2025
Gaye, a felon, was at his office late one night. He called 911 and reported that a man wearing a mask had run into his office, shot him, and ran out. Officers and first responders arrived on scene and found Gaye bleeding on the floor. While Gaye was taken to the hospital, officers confirmed that no one else was in the building and there were no signs of forced entry, even though the building was locked when they had arrived. There was no evidence that someone had shot into the office from outside, and officers noticed a bullet casing on Gaye’s desk. Officers obtained a search warrant with an accompanying affidavit stating that they suspected Gaye had shot himself and falsely reported a crime. Officers then searched the office and found a handgun in a locked drawer with one bullet missing from the magazine. The handgun used the same caliber bullet as the shell casing found on the desk, and its serial number was obliterated. During the same time, surgeons removed a bullet from Gaye’s leg. The bullet, which was placed in an evidence bag and stored in a locked box accessible only by police, was later matched to the handgun found in Gaye’s office. Gaye was indicted and convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress evidence produced by the search warrant and the bullet removed from his leg. The district court found that the affidavit sufficiently supported a search for evidence of the crime of false reporting. Alternatively, the court held that the good faith doctrine applied, so an overbroad warrant would not have required suppression. The court denied the motion. Gaye was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Gaye argued that the search warrant was not sufficiently specific to support the office search, and it therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. Here, even if some of the warrant’s provisions were broad, the affidavit included details of Gaye’s 911 call, the officers’ observations about the scene, and the suspicious inconsistencies between the two. The affidavit contained enough information to describe two crimes in the alternative and thus sufficiently narrowed the warrant. Further, Gaye conceded in district court that the affidavit was incorporated by reference in the warrant and argued that the warrant should be construed by reference to the affidavit, so any error in relying on the affidavit was invited. Additionally, the good faith exception applies because the warrant was first presented to a district attorney for approval and then sent to a neutral judge who signed it; and the affidavit and search warrant were prepared by the same officer who executed the search. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence found in Gaye’s office.
Gaye also argued that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred because the bullet was seized without a warrant or reasonable suspicion. However, the bullet was removed with Gaye’s consent by hospital staff, who were government actors because they acted in coordination with law enforcement when they removed the bullet and bagged it as evidence. Because he consented to the bullet’s seizure by government officials, and the bullet was evidence of a shooting, Gaye abandoned any privacy interest in the bullet. Further, the bullet was properly seized under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. The district court thus properly denied suppression of the bullet.
The denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed.