UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TYRONE IGNACIOU LYLES
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wilkinson, December 14, 2018,
SSW – An uncorroborated trash pull finding 3 stems of marijuana did not provide probable cause to support a search warrant where there was no identified target or address history.

“Law enforcement can do better.” Is that the legal standard? Because I thought it was “reasonableness.”
Does the Fourth Circuit contend that police are to assume that the resident of the location tried weed that one time (with rolling papers) and has now given up the habit?
The Court goes into histrionics about the breadth of the warrant (which, admittedly, wasn’t entirely supported), but the handguns located weren’t found in documents or jewelry…
Moreover, the Court’s statement that the warrant resembled “a general warrant” is the legal hyperbolic equivalent of “What is this, Nazi Germany?” The profound lack of understanding of the foundation of the Fourth Amendment is… disconcerting.
Hopefully cert will be granted in this case, because the 4CA is clearly trying to relitigate the USSC decision in Greenwood by coming up with a heightened version of PC for trash pulls… and hopefully, the Supremes aren’t cool with that.

Facts:
Prince George’s County Police found Lyles’ phone number in a homicide victim’s cell-phone and had “a hunch” that it was related to the murder.
PG Police then searched “four trash bags found at a curb near Lyles’ home” and found “three unknown type plant stems, three empty packs of rolling papers and one document addressed to 9010 Ridgewood Dr., Ft. Washington, Prince George’s County Maryland 20744. The stems were taken to the Prince George’s County Drug Lab where they tested positive for marijuana by a forensic chemist.”
The search warrant affidavit did not describe how the residence came to the attention of police, did not identify a homeowner, and did not identify the defendant.
The warrant sought to search for “evidence of possession of controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and money laundering.” The affidavit did not explain how the home was supposed to have been related to PWID or money laundering, but nevertheless sought to seize, in the words of the Court, “any computers, toiletries, or jewelry,” and search “every book, record, and document in the home.”
Despite the lack of evidence/articulation regarding distribution or money laundering, the warrant was reviewed by a prosecutor and then signed by a judge.
In executing the warrant, police located four handguns, ammunition, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in the home.
Lyles was indicted federally and moved to suppress the evidence recovered in the home, arguing that the search warrant was issued without probable cause.
The trial court suppressed the evidence, finding that the warrant lacked probable cause. Moreover, the trial court denied the good faith exception because it was “plain” that the warrant did not have probable cause.
The government appealed, arguing that the warrant was supported by probable cause and, even if it wasn’t, the good faith exception should apply.

Law:
Held: The Fourth Circuit held that “the trash pull evidence did not adequately support the warrant to search defendant’s home for marijuana possession.”

Trash Pull – Police do not need to justify a “search” of trash left for pickup “on or at the side of a public street”

Probable Cause – The probable cause justifying a search warrant requires a “practical, common-sense decision” that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

From the Case: The Court expressed concern that, “because curbside trash is so readily accessible, trash pulls can be subject to abuse. Trash cans provide an easy way for anyone so moved to plant evidence. Guests leave their own residue which often ends up in the trash. None of this means that items pulled from trash lack evidentiary value. It is only to suggest that the open and sundry nature of trash requires that it be viewed with at least modest circumspection…”

Practice Note: Specifying where evidence from a trash-pull was located can help support your probable-cause. Was mail with the address in the same bag as the CDS residue? That suggests that the trash came from the target location and wasn’t dropped there by a neighbor. Was residue found in more than one bag? That suggests a pattern of activity/use rather than a single “guest.”

From the Case: The Court found that the argument that there was PC for this search warrant “has several shortcomings. This was a single trash pull, and thus one less likely to reveal evidence of recurrent or ongoing activity. And from that one trash pull… the tiny quantity of discarded residue gives no indication of how long ago marijuana may have been consumed in the home. This case is almost singular in the sparseness of evidence pulled in one instance from the trash itself and the absence of other evidence to corroborate even that. The affidavit thus did not provide a substantial basis for the magistrate to find probable cause to search the home for evidence of marijuana possession.”

Note: The Fourth Circuit contrasted this case with other cases where they had found probable cause: 1) PC was found where a tip that a house was being used to sell drugs corroborated a trash pull revealing bags with cut corners and heroin residue, 2) PC was found where a tip that an individual possessed large amounts of marijuana corroborated a trash pull revealing PVC pipes and saran wrap with marijuana residue.

Practice Note: A trash-pull can be corroborated by: information received regarding the location, prior search-warrants executed at the location, prior calls for service at the location, information received regarding the target, prior criminal history of the target, prior criminal history of those who recently used the target location as a residence, etc. Make use of Arrest Viewer and CAD to help bolster your affidavit.

Scope – A search-warrant’s affidavit must support the evidence sought

From the Case: The Court took significant issue that the warrant “sought to search the home for evidence of possession of controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and money laundering.” However, there was no evidence of distribution or money laundering, undermining credibility.

Practice Note: When using a search-warrant template, highlight the parts that need to be reviewed each time. This includes: location, location description, crimes, expertise (guns vs drugs vs etc), expert opinions (PWID, firearms, etc), sealing order request, no-knock request, etc. Officers who use a template and submit the wrong parts of a warrant might later have their credibility called into question.

Scope – A single trash pull revealing marijuana residue did not support a search for “cell phones, jewelry, records, diaries, and firearms.”

From the Case: “The warrant application lacked any nexus between cell phones and marijuana possession. There is insufficient reason to believe that any cell phone in the home, no matter who owns it, will reveal evidence pertinent to marijuana possession simply because three marijuana stems were found in a nearby trash bag.”

Good Faith – Execution of a search warrant in “good faith” will “most often” allow the evidence to be admitted, even if the search warrant is later found to be invalid.

Good Faith – “Good Faith” does not apply where it was not “objectively reasonable” to believe that the search warrant was properly issued

From the Case: “… objectively speaking, what transpired here is not acceptable. What we have before us is a flimsy trash pull that produced scant evidence of a marginal offense but that nonetheless served to justify the indiscriminate rummaging through a household. Law enforcement can do better.”