Head in the Door, Case Out the Window

Summary

Holding: The Tenth Circuit reversed the denial of suppression, vacated Blasdel’s conviction and 188-month sentence, and remanded. Both the storage unit and house searches violated the Fourth Amendment.
Importance: Reinforces that police may not “peek” or enter storage units without a warrant; affidavits must stand on lawfully obtained facts. The good-faith exception cannot save warrants based on tainted evidence.
Limits: Opinion restricted to the specific deficiencies in these affidavits; does not alter the general principle that officers can rely on properly detailed civilian observations.

Oct. 2022: Employees at Acorn Storage Center in Bartlesville, OK, found the door to Unit 3992 slightly open.
Rental contract signed by Jessica Montgomery, but Blasdel’s email and payments tied him to the unit.
Employees entered to ensure no people/animals were inside; they saw a gun, baggies, scales, money counter, and white powder.
Standard procedure: they called police.

Officer Doyle arrived, “peeked his head” into the unit, saw suspected meth and a firearm — an act later conceded he could not have done from outside.
Officer Lemmons then entered, opened a drawer, confirmed drugs, and later swore an affidavit.
Affidavit described meth, baggies, scales, firearm, and currency counter — all based on the unlawful entry.
Warrant issued, yielding 4 lbs meth and multiple guns.

Using those results, Lemmons obtained a warrant for Blasdel’s house, citing recovery of meth and guns from the unit.
Search of the home produced 300g meth and six more firearms.

Blasdel moved to suppress both sets of evidence.
District court denied, holding no Fourth Amendment violation.
He entered a conditional guilty plea to drug conspiracy, possession w/ intent to distribute, and felon in possession.
Sentenced to 188 months; appeal followed.

Did officers’ warrantless peeking/entry into the storage unit violate the Fourth Amendment?
Once excised, did the storage unit affidavit still establish probable cause?
Was the house warrant valid, or was it fruit of the poisonous tree?
Does the good faith exception save either warrant?

Storage Unit: Officers’ peeking and entry were unconstitutional searches. After excising tainted info, affidavit lacked probable cause. Warrant invalid.
House: Affidavit relied on tainted evidence from the storage unit; thus, also invalid.
Good Faith Exception: Inapplicable. Affidavit was so facially deficient that no reasonable officer could rely on it; Tenth Circuit precedent bars good faith where warrant rests on tainted evidence.
Result: Evidence suppressed; conviction and sentence vacated.

Fourth Amendment Protection
- Individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy in storage units.
- Police entry, even partial (head peeking or drawer opening), constituted warrantless searches.
- Civilian observations (Acorn employees) could be relied on, but officers tainted affidavit by substituting their own illegal observations.
Affidavit Analysis
- Vague references to what “an employee believed” lacked detail.
- Only clear details came from Lemmons’s unlawful entry, which had to be excised.
- Once removed, affidavit lacked sufficient nexus to establish probable cause.
Good Faith Exception
- Presumption of good faith fails when affidavit is “so facially deficient” that no officer could rely on it.
- Lemmons knew his own observations came from an impermissible pre-warrant search.
- Tenth Circuit precedent (Loera, Gaye) bars application of good faith when warrant relies on tainted prior searches.
House Search
- Warrant rested entirely on fruit of the storage unit search.
- Once excised, affidavit contained nothing beyond Blasdel’s status as a felon aware of police presence — insufficient for probable cause.
- Evidence from house also suppressed.

No shortcuts: Police cannot “peek” into storage units or enter to “confirm” suspicions before a warrant.
Affidavit integrity: Affidavits must clearly distinguish between lawful civilian observations and officer observations.
Good faith limits: Exception does not apply when affidavit is facially deficient or based on tainted searches.
Fruit of the poisonous tree: If the first warrant is bad, subsequent warrants built on it collapse.
Training cue: Officers should carefully document what civilians saw, not substitute their own premature observations.