United States of America v. John Adam Bachler

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN ADAM BACHLER,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-10044

D.C. No.
2:19-cr-00333-DLR-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 20, 2020
Phoenix, Arizona

Before: BYBEE, MURGUIA, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

The government appeals the district court’s order suppressing all firearms and
ammunition found in John Bachler’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant issued
by a magistrate judge. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not
recount them here. We review the district court’s suppression order de novo. United
States v. Crews, 502 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 2007). We have jurisdiction under

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED

DEC 18 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
18 U.S.C. § 3731, and we reverse.
The government argues that the warrant to search Bachler’s apartment, which
allowed agents to search for and seize “[f]irearms and ammunition,” was supported
by probable cause and therefore not overbroad under the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. “A magistrate judge may issue a search warrant if, under
the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular location.” United States v. Clark,
31 F.3d 831, 834 (9th Cir. 1994). “A magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause
is entitled to great deference and this court will not find a search warrant invalid if
the magistrate judge had a ‘substantial basis’ for concluding that the supporting
affidavit established probable cause.” Crews, 502 F.3d at 1135 (citation omitted).
Here, federal law prohibited Bachler from possessing any firearm because he
was subject to a domestic-violence protective order. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
Bachler requested an exception from the firearm prohibition in state court, seeking
to repossess a “collection” of “military firearms,” but the state court denied any
exception and warned Bachler that he could not lawfully possess a firearm. Two
days later, Bachler visited the Phoenix Police Department’s Property Management
Bureau, handed a clerk incorrect and unsigned paperwork, and erroneously received
ten firearms. Bachler had also been caught illegally possessing an eleventh firearm
during a traffic stop while subject to the protective order. These facts were

3
adequately explained in a federal agent’s affidavit, and that affidavit was attached to
a warrant application to search Bachler’s apartment and vehicle for “[f]irearms and
ammunition.”
Relying on the federal agent’s affidavit, a magistrate judge determined that
probable cause existed to search for any and all firearms in Bachler’s apartment, and
we give great deference to that determination, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236
(1983) (stating that a magistrate judge’s determination of probable cause should
receive great deference). Considering the circumstances outlined in the federal
agent’s affidavit—including Bachler’s actions to retrieve ten firearms from the
Property Management Bureau despite being repeatedly told that he was a prohibited
possessor and Bachler’s admitted desire to repossess a “collection” of “military
firearms”—the magistrate judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause
existed to search for and seize any and all firearms in Bachler’s apartment.
Accordingly, the “[f]irearms and ammunition” clause in the warrant to search
Bachler’s apartment was not overbroad under the Fourth Amendment. The district
court erred by holding otherwise.
1

REVERSED.

1
Because the “[f]irearms and ammunition” clause was supported by probable
cause, we need not reach the argument regarding the good-faith exception.