United States v. John Purser

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40123
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

John Purser,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-232-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
John Purser appeals his convictions of possession of a firearm
following conviction of a felony and assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain
officers or employees. He argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress evidence obtained from his residence on the ground that

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-40123 Document: 00515680848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2020

No. 20-40123
2
the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule barred suppression. Finding
no reversible error of law or fact, we AFFIRM.
In September 2018, Officer Gerald Schlosser received reports of two
men fighting in a parking lot. When Schlosser arrived on the scene, one of
the two men, John Purser, fled, and a chase ensued. Purser reached his home
and pointed a firearm out of a window, threatening to shoot Schlosser. Other
officers arrived at the scene, but Purser could not be persuaded to budge from
his perch.
The officers obtained an arrest warrant for Purser and a search
warrant for his home. Investigator Candice Herron drafted a probable cause
affidavit. The affidavit listed Purser’s address as “275 Eastham Lane,
Princeton, Collin County, Texas 75407,” which Herron ascertained from the
police reports documenting the assault. She attached two pictures from
Google Maps depicting the residence, and she described the structure as “tan
with brown trim,” marked by a “utility pole to the south with the numbers
275.”
Once the warrant was issued, the officers returned to the area where
the fight occurred. Purser, out on the streets, spotted them and fled towards
his home. There, he once again tried to barricade himself. After a violent
tussle, the officers eventually subdued and arrested Purser.
When Herron arrived to conduct a search of the home, she observed
the house was blue, not brown. Nonetheless, she believed the home was the
address listed in the affidavit, because the structure was marked by “275”
and was the very residence where Purser had fled.
During trial, Purser moved to suppress any evidence stemming from
the search of his residence, arguing that the search warrant incorrectly listed
his address. The district court held a hearing at which the parties presented
witness testimony, documentary evidence, and argument of counsel. The
Case: 20-40123 Document: 00515680848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2020

No. 20-40123
3
court entered a written order denying the motion on the ground that the good
faith exception to the exclusionary rule barred suppression.
A jury convicted Purser of possession of a firearm following conviction
of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and assaulting, resisting, or impeding
certain officers or employees (18 U.S.C. § 111). The district court sentenced
him to a total term of imprisonment of 87 months on both counts to run
concurrently. Purser timely appealed.
This court reviews de novo the denial of a suppression motion and
examines the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v.
Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2014). We engage in a two-step inquiry
when reviewing a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress
involving a search warrant. United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 835 (5th Cir.
2010). We first decide whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary
rule applies; if it does not, we review whether the issuing judge had a
substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed. Id.
The exclusionary rule is a judicially-created remedy “designed to
safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect.”
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3412 (1984)
(quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348, 94 S. Ct. 613, 620
(1974)). The rule forbids the admission of evidence resulting from an
unconstitutional search. Id. at 918. Under the good faith exception, however,
“if the officers obtained the evidence ‘in objectively reasonable good-faith
reliance upon a search warrant,’ the evidence is admissible ‘even though the
affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish
probable cause.’” United States v. Pope, 467 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2006)
(quoting United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992)).
The Supreme Court has identified several limitations to the good faith
exception, and Purser argues two of them apply here. First, he contends that
Case: 20-40123 Document: 00515680848 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2020

No. 20-40123
4
the magistrate issuing the warrant was misled by the affidavit’s information,
which Herron knew or reasonably should have known was false. Leon,
468 U.S. at 923. Second, he asserts the warrant was so facially deficient in
failing to particularize the place to be searched that Herron could not have
reasonably presumed it to be valid. Id.
Both arguments fail. Officer Herron inserted the incorrect Google
Map Street View photos of Purser’s residence. But as the district court
correctly observed, Herron did not realize the photos were outdated, and her
affidavit otherwise provided sufficient, correct information for the judge to
make a finding of probable cause. The circumstances make clear that
Herron’s mistake was an honest one—a far cry from “reckless disregard for
the truth.” Id. What’s more, Herron’s mistake was not really a mistake at
all, for any alleged error was cured when Purser led the officers to his correct
address and they searched his actual residence. Thus, the good-faith
exception applies.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-40123 Document: 00515680848 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/21/2020